ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE. 1 DM/15/2734 Development Site To Rear Of Tiltwood House, Gage Close, Crawley Down, West Sussex, RH10 4LL

Transcription

1 DOCUMENT B MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 5 NOV 2015 INDEX TO ITEMS REPORTED PART I - RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE 1 DM/15/2734 Development Site To Rear Of Tiltwood House, Gage Close, Crawley Down, West Sussex, RH10 4LL 2 2 DM/15/2923 Beacon Heights, 4 Church Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex,RH16 3PB 32 3 DM/15/3309 CCHF All About Kids, Stafford House, 91 Keymer Road, Hassocks,West Sussex, BN6 8QL 71 PART II - RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE None PART III OTHER MATTERS ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE 4 DM/15/1161 Land Adjacent to Barn Cottage, Cuckfield Road, Ansty, West Sussex, RH17 5AG 99 1

2 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 5 NOV 2015 PART I RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Worth 1. DM/15/2734 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey DEVELOPMENT SITE TO REAR OF TILTWOOD HOUSE GAGE CLOSE CRAWLEY DOWN WEST SUSSEX PROPOSED ERECTION OF 5 NO. THREE BEDROOM HOUSES, PLUS ANCILLARY STORAGE ACCOMMODATION TO THE HOST DWELLING (TILTWOOD HOUSE). MR KLAVS OLSEN GRID REF: EAST NORTH

3 POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC / Built Up Areas / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Methane Gas Safeguarding / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Strategic Gaps / Tree Preservation Order / Strategic Gap / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 31st August 2015 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Phillip Coote / Cllr Bruce Forbes / Cllr Neville Walker / CASE OFFICER: Mr Andrew Watt EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 5 no. 3-bed detached houses plus ancillary storage accommodation to the host dwelling at Tiltwood House, Crawley Down. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The proposal would have benefits in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainable development, as envisaged by the NPPF. The site is adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Crawley Down and the resultant plot sizes would be commensurate with those of the surrounding pattern of development, so would not cause significant harm. The design of the scheme would also be in character with the fairly modern nature of development in the locality. It is considered that the proposal would not result in a significantly harmful form of development to neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking or being overbearing. No highway safety issues have been identified. No adverse impact would result to existing trees. Overall, it is not considered that any adverse impact of the proposal would outweigh 3

4 the substantial benefits of providing new houses in sustainable locations in the District. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with policies C1, C2, C5, B1, B2, B3, B4, B7, H2, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP1, DP2, DP5, DP6, DP10, DP15, DP19, DP24, DP25, DP36, DP39 and DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies CDNP04.2, CDNP05, CDNP06, CDNP08, CDNP09, CDNP10 and CDNP11 of the draft Worth-Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework therefore that it should be approved. RECOMMENDATION Recommendation A It is recommended that, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning obligation to secure the required level of SAMM and SANG contributions, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A. Recommendation B If by 7 December 2015, the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed planning obligation securing the necessary financial contributions, then it is recommended that planning permission be refused at the discretion of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning for the following reason: "The proposal does not adequately mitigate the potential impact on the Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC and therefore would be contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP15 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policy CDNP14 of the draft Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework." SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS 10 letters of objection: Overbearing impact, intrusion into countryside, increased noise and disturbance, overdevelopment, exacerbate flooding, sewage system already overloaded, construction traffic will have a dramatic impact on this narrow road, increased parking and traffic, local school and doctors cannot accommodate more families, should be accessed off Hophurst Lane, not Gage Close, not in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan, not a suburban location, Pasture Wood development should not be used as justification for further development in this area, insufficient car parking, precedent, removal of trees and shrubs will increase flow of excess water downhill, no economic benefits, will have vehicles passing my property, Japanese knotweed has invaded the Tiltwood Estate, would it upset the residents on the Hophurst Lane to have access from there rather than Gage Close? 2 letters of comment: make sure this development is not a gated community, like the 9 new dwellings at Pasture Wood are, will development result in loss of parking, issue with excess water from site onto Gage Close, particularly with fewer trees. 4

5 1 letter of support: support the proposed development and compliment the design which is keeping with existing properties and area around Gage Close. Requests consideration be given to issues of surface water drainage, not clear how the footpath in front of our property will be extended (if at all) and consideration be given to the parking and vehicle access during construction. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS MSDC Drainage No objection, subject to condition. MSDC Environmental Protection No objection, subject to conditions. MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer Informative requested. MSDC Tree and Landscape Officer No objection. MSDC Urban Designer Both in layout and architectural terms, this is a well thought out scheme. Despite its refreshingly individual design, the proposal appropriately responds to its context and echoes the profile and massing of the existing adjacent houses. I therefore raise no objections subject to conditions requiring: o The landscape design (including boundary treatment) o Samples/details of facing materials including the windows and balustrades. o The rainwater pipes are constructed in self-supporting galvanised steel (as advised by the architect). WSCC Highways No objection, subject to conditions. PARISH COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS Object: Site is in the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan Area. Contrary to Policies 5.2-Infill Housing And 6-Control of New Development 5

6 INTRODUCTION Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 5 no. 3-bed detached houses plus ancillary storage accommodation to the host dwelling at Tiltwood House, Crawley Down. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None relevant on this site. However, planning permission was granted by Planning Committee A in May 2015 for 2 new dwellings within the rear garden of Tiltwood Coach House around 100m to the north-east of the site, described thus: "Coach House Cottage - Rebuild and extend outbuilding to form a single storey 2 bedroom cottage. Karen's Cottage - Convert and extend workshop/store to form a single storey 1 bedroom cottage" (14/04424/FUL). SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The site comprises part of the rear garden of Tiltwood House, a large 2.5-storey 1930s dwelling arranged as a mid-terraced property, flanked by Tiltwood West and Tiltwood East, all accessed off Hophurst Lane and forming an ensemble of buildings (Tiltwood Estate) separated from the more modern developments to the south and east along Tiltwood Drive, Gage Close and Aviary Way. There is a gated pedestrian access to Gage Close to the south, with a line of fairly modern 2-storey link detached dwellings to the east and a pair of semi-detached properties arranged around the turning head of this small cul-de-sac, which is set on lower ground than the site (and the rear garden itself slopes down more gently from Tiltwood House). The site is well vegetated with mature conifers arranged within and on the periphery, together with more mature deciduous trees. In particular, there is a group preservation order of trees on adjoining land to the west (WP/03/TPO/05), arranged around Pasture Wood, which is now a development site of 9 houses (14/01352/FUL). In terms of policy constraints, the site is set within a Countryside Area of Development Restraint and Strategic Gap between Crawley and East Grinstead, as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan. The southern boundary does, however, adjoin the built-up area boundary of Crawley Down, as defined in both the MSLP and the draft Neighbourhood Plan. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposal is for the erection of 5 no. 3-bed detached houses plus ancillary storage accommodation to the host dwelling at Tiltwood House, Crawley Down. Access will be gained via Gage Close to the south and 11 car parking spaces will be provided in total (including 5 garages measuring 3m x 6m, allowing cycles to be accommodated within. The ancillary storage accommodation will comprise storage for garden equipment, drive on mower, 6 bicycles and gardeners' toilet on the ground floor and a spiral staircase with unspecified accommodation above. This will be centrally aligned with 6

7 the access and be flanked by two handed dwellings, Units 2 (to the west) and 3 (to the east) topped with a hipped roof and solar panels. Units 1, 4 and 5 to the south of the site will be identical (with Unit 1 handed and oriented 90 degrees to Units 4 and 5 opposite to the east). Between these units and the central axis building providing an 'end-stop' to the north will be covered garages, two to the west of the turning head and three to the east. The design will be quite striking, with grey and red brick and red cedar clad panelled elevations beneath wide eaves of shallow pitched cement slates and PV panelled roofs, oversized chimneys, and feature unpainted galvanised steel rainwater goods descending unsupported at an angle from the roof to the walls. Painted metal windows will be expressed by brick surrounds. LIST OF POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (May 2004) C1 (protection of the countryside) C2 (strategic gaps) C5 (nature conservation) B1 (design) B2 (residential estate developments) B3 (residential amenities) B4 (energy and water conservation) B7 (trees and development) H2 (density and dwelling mix) T4 (transport requirements in new developments) T5 (parking standards) T6 (cycle parking) CS13 (land drainage) Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (Feb 2006) Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document (Jul 2006) Worth - Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan Referendum 10th December 2015 Material planning consideration with significant weight The most relevant policies are: Policy CDNP04.2: Infill Housing Infill housing will be permitted provided it is in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan and meet the following criteria: a) The spacing between buildings reflects the character of the street scene. b) The plot size is appropriate to the scale of the building. c) Gaps which provide views out of the village to surrounding countryside are maintained and materials are compatible with materials of existing/surrounding buildings d) The traditional boundary treatment of an area is retained and where feasible reinforced. 7

8 e) Suitable access and on-site parking is provided without detriment to neighbouring properties. f) Amenities such as access, noise, privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook of adjoining residents are safeguarded. g) The scale, height, and form of the development should be in character with the street scene. Where appropriate, special regard should be had to sustaining and enhancing the setting and features of heritage assets and the Areas of Townscape Character. Policy CDNP05: Control of New Developments Subject to the other policies of this Neighbourhood Plan; Within the Crawley Down Settlement Neighbourhood Plan Area, planning permission will be granted for residential development subject to the following criteria: b) The scale height and form fit unobtrusively with the surrounding buildings and the character of the area or street scene and where appropriate, special regard should be had to sustaining and enhancing the setting and features of heritage assets and the Areas of Townscape Character.. c) Individual developments will not comprise more than 30 dwellings in total, with a maximum density of 25 per Ha and spacing between buildings to reflect the character of the area. d) Amenities such as access, noise, privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook of adjoining residents are safeguarded. e) The individual plot sizes are proportionate to the scale of the dwelling. f) Open green spaces are provided in accordance with the Local Plan standard provisions. Where practical open spaces should provide linkage/connection to elements of the local footpath network. g) Construction materials are compatible with the materials of the general area and are locally sourced where practical. h) The traditional boundary treatment of the area is provided and where feasible reinforced. i) Suitable access and on-site parking is provided without detriment to neighbouring properties. j) The development is arranged such that it integrates with the village. k) Housing need is justified. l) The development does not impact unacceptably on the local highway network. m) Issues raised in the local housing supply document site assessment are satisfactorily addressed. n) Has a range of dwelling sizes and in particular provides dwellings that are suited to the needs of both young families and older residents. o) Includes affordable homes as required by District policy. p) Proposals for new housing developments must meet the standards set out in Appendix 1. q) Developments of 6 or more dwellings should provide a mix of dwelling sizes (market and affordable) that fall within the following ranges: Market Housing At least 75% 2-3 bedroom houses and up to 25% other sizes Affordable Housing At least 80% 2-3 bedroom houses and Up to 20% other sizes 8

9 Policy CDNP06: Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy CDNP08: Prevention of Coalescence Development outside the village boundary will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that: a. It does not detract significantly from the openness and character of the landscape. b. It does not contribute to 'ribbon development' along the roads or paths linking the village to neighbouring settlements of Copthorne, Felbridge, Turners Hill and Crawley. c. It does not significantly reduce the gaps between the village and neighbourhing settlements of Copthorne, Felbridge, Turners Hill and Crawley. Policy CDNP09: Protect and Enhance Biodiversity Policy CDNP10: Promoting Sustainable Transport Policy CDNP11: Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA) Draft Mid Sussex District Plan (MSDP) The Pre-Submission District Plan was published on the 12th June The Plan is a material planning consideration but little weight can be given to the Plan at this stage. The most relevant policies are: Policy DP1: Sustainable Development in Mid Sussex Policy DP2: Sustainable Economic Development Policy DP5: Housing Policy DP6: Settlement Hierarchy Policy DP10: Protection and Enhancement of Countryside Policy DP15: Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Policy DP19: Transport Policy DP24: Character and Design Policy DP25: Dwelling Space Standards Policy DP36: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows Policy DP39: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy DP41: Flood Risk and Drainage National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Mar 2012) The NPPF sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. 9

10 With specific reference to decision-taking, the document provides the following advice at paragraph 187: "Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Paragraph 197 states that: "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development." Planning Practice Guidance (Mar 2014) Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standard (Mar 2015) ASSESSMENT (CONSIDERATION OF KEY ISSUES) The main issues for consideration are: o The principle of development; o The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area; o The standard of accommodation; o The impact on neighbouring amenity; o Highways matters; o Drainage; o Sustainability; o Impact on trees; o Impact on Ashdown Forest; o Whether the proposal would be sustainable development; and o Planning Balance and Conclusions Principle of development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) Any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." 10

11 Using this as the starting point, the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five-year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of Policies C1 and C2 in the MSLP cannot be considered up to date. In those circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies, which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: - approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." The second bullet point of the 'decision taking' section currently applies. Thus as Policies C1 and C2 cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49) the Council should be granting planning permission unless 'any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole'. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF, in order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. 11

12 Assessment of main issues Design and visual impact Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan promotes high quality design, construction and layout in new buildings and Policy B2 encourages good quality residential estate development. Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan states: "All development and surrounding spaces, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings and replacement dwellings, will be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of the towns and villages while being sensitive to the countryside. All applicants will be required to demonstrate that development: - is of high quality design and layout and includes appropriate landscaping and greenspace; - contributes positively to, and clearly defines, public and private realms and should normally be designed with building frontages facing streets and public open spaces; - creates a sense of place while addressing the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape; - protects open spaces, trees and gardens that contribute to the character of the area; - protects valued townscapes and the separate identity and character of towns and villages; - does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings, including taking account of the impact on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight; - creates a pedestrian-friendly layout that is safe, well connected, legible and accessible; - incorporates well integrated parking that does not dominate the street environment; - positively addresses sustainability considerations in the layout and the building design." Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a set of core landuse planning principles that should underpin decision-taking, including the notion that planning should: "always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings." Paragraph 53 states: "Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area." Paragraph 56 states: "The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people." Paragraph 58 outlines the principles of good design: 12

13 "Local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments: - will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; - establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; - optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; - respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; - create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and - are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping." Paragraph 61 states: "Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment." The proposed layout incorporates a central terrace which acts as an 'end stop' to the development from Gage Close, flanked by three other dwellings and two garage buildings (further set back), all reflecting the downward slope of the land away from Tiltwood House. The layout and the individual design approach reflects elements of dwellings on the western side of Gage Close in particular, but makes its own style that is consistent throughout the new development. Due to the enclosed nature of the development site (it being surrounded by other gardens), the proposal will be viewed in the context of surrounding developments and will not encroach upon open countryside nor represent isolated development within the landscape. Although the development will require the removal of the line of mature 6m high conifers close to the southern boundary, the more mature deciduous trees along the garden boundaries to the east and west will be retained, so the green backdrop to Gage Close will not be significantly impacted. The design on its own merits has been assessed by the council's Urban Designer, whose comments are reported in full in Appendix B. The architect can be commended for an individual design that appropriately responds to its edge-ofvillage context. Subject to conditions securing the quality of design, it is considered that no harmful impact would be caused to the visual amenities of the area. With particular respect to the draft Neighbourhood Plan policies cited by the Parish Council, it is considered that all criteria [a) to g)] of Policy CDNP04.2 would be met 13

14 by this proposal. It would also be considered to meet the criteria in Policy CDNP05, except for criteria a), which is no longer applicable, as the government recently removed the requirement for the Code for Sustainable Homes. Overall, therefore, it is considered that the application would comply with the above policies and guidance. Standard of accommodation Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of future occupants of new dwellings. Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. Units 1, 4 and 5 will have an internal floor area of 100 sq m and Units 2 and sq m and will meet the above standard for 2-storey, 5-person dwellings of 93 sq m. On this basis, it is considered that the above policies and guidance would be met by this proposal. Impact on neighbouring amenity Policy B3 of the Local Plan states that proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook. Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings, including taking account of the impact on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. The main property affected by the proposal would be 16 Gage Close, with other adjoining properties at 16 Aviary Way, 5 Gage Close, two properties at Pasture Wood to the west and the dwellings at Tiltwood West, Tiltwood East and Tiltwood House itself. 16 Gage Close is set on lower ground than the application site, with its flank wall a minimum distance of 4.5m from the flank wall of proposed Unit 5. There are two windows facing this neighbouring property, one ground floor serving a triple aspect kitchen/diner and one larger window serving the stairwell and landing. It is not considered that the relationship between the two properties would be unduly overbearing, given that the spacing between these two is greater than that between 14

15 the other properties in this cul-de-sac. However, it is considered prudent that the landing window on Plot 5 be obscure glazed through condition, in order to avoid overlooking to the side of this neighbouring property. Proposed Plot 1 would be sited 23m from the side elevation of the nearest Plot on Pasture Wood to the west, and separated by a mature (albeit gappy) tree screen. Plots 2 and 3 would be sited some 42m and 40m from the rear elevations of Tiltwood West, Tiltwood House and Tiltwood East respectively. There would be a distance of approximately 65m from proposed Plot 5 to the rear elevation of 16 Aviary Way. All these relationships are considered sufficient to ensure that the proposed development would not have an overbearing impact or result in a loss of privacy. Overall, there would be no conflict with these policies. Access, parking and impact on highway safety Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states that proposals for new development should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Policy T5 outlines the requirements for parking provision and access to new developments, in conjunction with the council's (maximum) parking standards, as set out in the Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. Policy T6 requires provision of cycle storage facilities in new developments. Policy DP19 the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development to: be sustainably located to minimise the need for travel; promote alternative means of transport to the private car, including provision of suitable facilities for secure and safe cycle parking; not cause a severe cumulative impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion; be designed to adoptable standards, or other standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority, including road widths and size of garages; and provide adequate car parking in accordance with parking standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority or in accordance with the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal and conditions requiring further details of the parking spaces, cycle parking provision and submission of a construction management plan can be conditioned as part of any consent, thus complying with the above policies. Drainage Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks to ensure that sites on which new development is provided can be adequately drained. Policy DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development proposals to follow a sequential riskbased approach, ensure development is safe across its lifetime and not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. In areas that have experienced flooding in the past, use of Sustainable Drainage Systems should be implemented unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. The council's Drainage Engineer has raised no objection to this proposal and it is considered that this matter can be dealt with by condition, so complying with the above policies. 15

16 Sustainability Policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan requires all new development proposals to maximise opportunities for efficient use of energy, water and materials and use of natural drainage. Policy DP39 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan specifies that all new major and residential development proposals must address the following aspects of sustainable design and construction: energy efficiency, waste and resources, water use and resilience to climate change. Paragraph 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: "Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development." Paragraph 96 states: "In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: - comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and - take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption." A Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Statement has been submitted to accompany the application, which specifies that the development will minimise thermal bridging and air leakage at junctions, utilise low energy lighting, A-rated gas condensing boilers, hot water cylinders, space heating with controls over times and temperatures, A-rated white goods, double glazing, limited water usage, low flow rate fitttings, smaller capacity baths, dual flush toilets, use of low environmental impact materials, use of sustainable drainage systems will be used where possible, minimised construction waste, recycling bins, good levels of daylighting, rainwater butts and drying space within rear gardens. Solar panels will be sited on the southfacing roof slopes. These measures are considered acceptable in meeting the provisions of the above policies and guidance. Impact on trees Policy B7 of the Local Plan seeks to retain trees as far as possible for their amenity value. Policy DP36 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan states that: "The District Council will support the protection and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerows, and encourage new planting. In particular, ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will be protected." An Arboricultural Report has been submitted to accompany the application, which notes that 5 trees (Silver Birch x 2, Weeping Willow, Cherry and Beech) and a group of approximately 25 Leyland Cypresses will be felled to facilitate the proposed development, all being categorised as C1 or C2 (i.e. trees of low quality with an 16

17 estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years). The report concludes that the proposed development is principally located outside the root protection areas of the retained trees and will have no detrimental impact on the retained trees, provided that suitable protection measures are implemented (which can be secured through condition). The council's Tree and Landscape Officer has considered this report, following a site meeting, and concurs with its recommendations, so raises no arboricultural objection. As such, the above policies would be met. Ashdown Forest The Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a European Site of Nature Conservation Importance, which lies adjacent to the north east boundary of Mid Sussex and within the District of Wealden. The area is protected by the European Habitats Directive and by Government Planning Policy. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the 'Habitats Regulations'), the competent authority, in this case Mid Sussex District Council, has a duty to ensure that any plans or projects that they regulate will have no adverse effect on the integrity of Ashdown Forest. Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires the Council to assess the possible effects of plans or projects, i.e. planning applications on Ashdown Forest. If the proposed development will not have a likely significant effect on the Forest, either alone or in combination with other proposed developments in the area, the Council may proceed to determine the application. However, if a significant effect is likely, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, an appropriate assessment must be undertaken to establish whether the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. If the appropriate assessment concludes that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site, the Council may proceed to determine the application. There may be likely significant effects on the Ashdown Forest SPA as a result of increased recreational activity arising from new residential development and related population growth that is likely to disturb the protected bird species. Within 7km of the Ashdown Forest SPA, residential development leading to a net increase in dwellings will need to contribute to an appropriate level of mitigation. There are two parts to the mitigation. By providing an alternative option, Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) is the name given to greenspace that is of a quality and type suitable to be used as mitigation. A SANG site could either be provided on the development site itself or through a financial contribution towards a strategic SANG. The East Court and Ashplats Wood SANG Strategy has been agreed by the District Council. The second part of the mitigation is to provide a financial contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). The Council has produced an interim SAMM Strategy that sets out measures to protect the Ashdown Forest SPA from new recreational pressures through managing access (visitor) behaviour and monitoring both birds and visitors. The projects that form the mitigation 17

18 measures have been discussed and agreed in collaboration with the Conservators of Ashdown Forest and Natural England. The interim SAMM Strategy will be superseded by a Joint SAMM Strategy which is currently being prepared with the other affected local authorities. This proposed development site lies within 7km of the Ashdown Forest SPA and as such, mitigation is required. In this case, the SAMM Strategy would require the payment of 13,140 and the SANG contribution would be 8,455. The applicants have agreed that they would be prepared to make a financial contribution towards the SAMM and SANG Strategies and a legal agreement is being progressed accordingly. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitutes the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The economic role The proposed development would result in the creation of construction jobs during the build period. The additional, albeit limited, population could help generate more local spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services, and generate New Homes Bonus funding as well as additional Council Tax receipts. These are all material considerations that weigh in favour of the development. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the economic role of sustainable development. Social role The provision of 5 new dwellings will make small but a useful contribution to the district's housing supply and would help meet the identified need for housing. The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being." Due to the location of the site adjacent to the built-up edge of Crawley Down where there are a number of services, it is considered that the location of the site is sustainable. Overall it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the social role of sustainable development. Environmental role The proposed development is on land that is free from national designations, i.e. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park, which cover 60 per cent of the 18

19 district. There is an overriding need to ensure that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is recognised and that development should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. Given the fact that there is existing development on all sides of the site (albeit garden land to the east), it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the wider countryside. The proposed development in terms of layout, scale and appearance is considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and hence would not result in an adverse impact to the character of the surrounding built environment. The access point can be formed through Gage Close, which currently has a turning head and terminates just south of the site boundary, and although there would be a loss of a large number of coniferous trees and 5 more deciduous trees, which would be noticeable from the south, the more mature deciduous vegetation surrounding the site would be retained and therefore the development would be well integrated into this softened street scene environment. As such, the environmental role of sustainable development would be satisfied by this proposal. Planning Balance and Conclusions As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The proposal would have benefits in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainable development, as envisaged by the NPPF. The site is adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Crawley Down and the resultant plot sizes would be commensurate with those of the surrounding pattern of development, so would not cause significant harm. The design of the scheme would also be in character with the fairly modern nature of development in the locality. It is considered that the proposal would not result in a significantly harmful form of development to neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking or being overbearing. No highway safety issues have been identified. No adverse impact would result to existing trees. Overall, it is not considered that any adverse impact of the proposal would outweigh the substantial benefits of providing new houses in sustainable locations in the District. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with policies C1, C2, C5, B1, B2, B3, B4, B7, H2, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP1, DP2, DP5, DP6, DP10, DP15, DP19, DP24, DP25, DP36, DP39 and DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies CDNP04.2, CDNP05, CDNP06, CDNP08, CDNP09, CDNP10 and CDNP11 of the draft Worth-Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework therefore that it should be approved. 19

20 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act No development shall commence until a schedule and/or samples of materials and finishes to be used for the external walls, windows, rainwater goods and roofs of the proposed dwellings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 3. No development shall commence until details of proposed boundary screen walls/fences/hedges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such boundary screen walls/fences/hedges associated with them have been erected or planted. The boundary treatments approved shall remain in place in perpetuity or unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the appearance of the area and protect the amenities of adjacent residents and to accord with policies H3 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 4. No development shall commence unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 5. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period 20

21 of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 6. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed surface water drainage and foul water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is satisfactorily drained and to accord with the NPPF requirements, Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 7. No development shall commence until details of existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall not be implemented otherwise than in accordance with such details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of adjacent residents or the appearance of the locality and to accord with policies B1 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 8. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters: o the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, o the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, o the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, o the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, o the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, o the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, 21

22 o the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), o measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, o details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 9. No development shall commence until 1:20 scale elevation and section drawings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing a typical front/street elevation and section through the centre of the projecting bay of Units 1 and 2. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve buildings of visual quality and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 10. Construction phase Works of construction or demolition, including the use of plant and machinery, necessary for implementation of this consent shall be limited to the following times: Monday-Friday: 0800hrs-1800hrs; Saturday: 0900hrs- 1300hrs; and Sundays and Bank Holidays: no work permitted. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 11. Pre-occupation conditions No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 12. Post-occupation monitoring/management conditions The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Sustainability Statement submitted as part of the application. On completion of the development, an independent final report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposals in the Statement have been implemented. 22

23 Reason: To ensure that measures to make the development sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development, in accordance with policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or as amended in the future, no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the dwellinghouses, whether or not consisting of an addition or alteration to their roof, shall be carried out, (nor shall any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool be provided within the curtilage of the dwellinghouses) without the specific grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and to preserve the amenities of neighbouring residents, to accord with policies B1 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 14. The staircase/landing window on the south elevation of Unit 5 hereby permitted shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and fixed to be non-openable, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties and to accord with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 15. The ancillary accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of Tiltwood House as a dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation, otherwise a new planning application will be required. Reason: To avoid an over-intensification of the site in the interests of the amenities of the area, and to comply with policies C1 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. INFORMATIVES 1. You are advised that this planning permission requires compliance with a planning condition(s) before development commences. You are therefore advised to contact the case officer as soon as possible, or you can obtain further information from: (Fee of 97 will be payable). If you carry out works prior to a pre-development condition being discharged then a lawful start will not have been made and you will be liable to enforcement action. 2. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and 23

24 Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: - No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Location Plan Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Block Plan Proposed Floor Plans Proposed Elevations Proposed Floor Plans PAJB 01/PLANNING 01 PAJB 01/PLANNING 02 PAJB 01/PLANNING 04 PAJB 01/PLANNING 03 PAJB 01/PLANNING 05 PAJB 01/PLANNING 13 PAJB 01/PLANNING A A A A A

25 Proposed Elevations Proposed Elevations Proposed Sections Proposed Floor Plans Proposed Elevations Proposed Sections Proposed Sections Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan Proposed Site Plan 09 PAJB 01/PLANNING 11 PAJB 01/PLANNING 10 PAJB 01/PLANNING 07 PAJB 01/PLANNING 12 PAJB 01/PLANNING 14 PAJB 01/PLANNING 06 PAJB 01/PLANNING 08 PAJB 01/PLANNING 15 PAJB 01/PLANNING 16 PAJB 01/PLANNING 17 A A A APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS MSDC Drainage This submitted application is suitable to be dealt with by condition. We understand the existing flood risks associated with this proposed development to be: 1. No known flood risks We would expect the flood risk to change post development in the following way: 1. Increase in impermeable area to create and/or exacerbate local flood risk. 25

26 The proposed development has shown the following in mitigation of the flood risk: 1. No submitted detail. Useful links: Planning Practice Guidance - Flood Risk and Coastal Change Flood Risk Assessment for Planning Applications For the use of SuDS(1)(2)(3): Written Statement (HCWS 161) - Department for Communities and Local Government - sets out the expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided to new developments wherever this is appropriate. Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus have 30% capacity for climate change(4). A maintenance and management plan will also need to be arranged and submitted that shows how all SuDS infrastructure is kept to operate at its optimum for the lifetime of the development. This will need to identify who will undertake this work and how it will be funded. Also, measures and arrangements in place to ensure perpetuity and demonstrate the serviceability requirements, including scheduled maintenance, inspections, repairs and replacements, will need to be submitted. A clear timetable for the schedule of maintenance can help to demonstrate this. (1)Suitable SuDS Guidance can be found using CIRIA Guidance Document C697 "SuDS Manual" (2)20% climate change for industrial and commercial development proposals (3)Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest 365 "Soakaway Design" (4)Submitted SuDS designs will need to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person Useful links: Sustainable drainage systems technical standards Water.People.Places.- A guide for master planning sustainable drainage into developments For the use of attenuation, swales and soakaways(1): Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus have 30% capacity for climate change(2). (1) Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest 365 "Soakaway Design" (2)20% climate change for industrial and commercial development proposals For the use of Public Sewers(1): Copies of the approval of the adoption of foul and surface water sewers and/or the connection to foul and surface water sewers from the sewerage undertaker, which agrees a rate of discharge, will need to be submitted. 26

27 (1)Any design and construction of sewers should follow the standards of the WRC guidance "Sewers for Adoption" - currently 7th edition. For the proposal of works to an Ordinary Watercourse: If works are undertaken within, under, over or up to an Ordinary Watercourse, even if this is temporary, an Ordinary Watercourse Consent (OWC) may need to be applied for. OWC applications can be discussed and made with Mid Sussex District Council, Scott Wakely, For the use of watercourse to discharge surface water(1): Calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted that demonstrate that discharge from the proposed development will be restricted to Greenfield run-off rate or QBar run-off rate, whichever provides the better rate of discharge(2). This will need to be for up to the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% capacity for climate change. (1)In accordance with The Land Drainage Act (2)Approved methods to calculate this include: Institute of Hydrology - Report "Flood Estimation for Small Catchments" Centre for Ecology & Hydrology "Flood Estimation Handbook" - (FEH) WinDes Software - Generated FEH Output (For Highway) DMBR Standards HA106/04 - "Drainage of Runoff From Natural Catchments" For the presence of an Ordinary Watercourse running through or adjacent to the site: Consultation will need to be made with Mid Sussex District Council if there is a watercourse running through or adjacent to the proposed development. It is common practice to require the development to leave a strip of land, at least 5 to 8 metres wide, in order to provide access for future maintenance. Suitable condition for this proposed development: (Multiple Dwellings) The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed surface water drainage and foul water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details 27

28 MSDC Environmental Protection Environmental Protection has no objection to this application, subject to the conditions below. Conditions: o Construction hours: Works of construction or demolition, including the use of plant and machinery, necessary for implementation of this consent shall be limited to the following times: Monday - Friday 08:00-18:00 Hours Saturday 09:00-13:00 Hours Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays no work permitted. Reason: to protect the amenity of local residents. o Minimise dust emissions: Demolition/Construction work shall not commence until a scheme for the protection of the existing neighbouring properties from dust has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme as approved shall be operated at all times during the demolition/construction phases of the development. Reason: to protect the amenity of local residents from dust emissions. o No burning materials: No burning of demolition/construction waste materials shall take place on site. Reason: to protect the amenity of local residents from smoke, ash, odour and fume. MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer I note from the list of planning applications received during the week 9th July 2015 to 15th July 2015 that the applications listed below will require address allocation if approved. Planning application number DM/15/2692 DM/15/2758 DM/15/2798 DM/15/2820 DM/15/2734 Please could I ask you to ensure that the following informative is added to any decision notice granting approval: Informative: Info29 The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming & Numbering Officer before work starts on site. 28

29 Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on MSDC Tree and Landscape Officer I am in receipt of the Arboricultural Report. I am pleased to confirm that I concur with the report and its recommendations. The trees to be removed are all category C. The minor incursions into the root protection areas are within acceptable limits. The protective fencing is to be erected and maintained as shown on the Tree Protection Plan. There is therefore no Arboricultural objection to the proposal. MSDC Urban Designer Summary and Overall Assessment Both in layout and architectural terms, this is a well thought out scheme. Despite its refreshingly individual design, the proposal appropriately responds to its context and echoes the profile and massing of the existing adjacent houses. I therefore raise no objections subject to conditions requiring: o The landscape design (including boundary treatment) o Samples/details of facing materials including the windows and balustrades. o The rainwater pipes are constructed in self-supporting galvanised steel (as advised by the architect). Layout The overall courtyard arrangement appears to work well. The buildings naturally terminate and provide some interest to an otherwise ubiquitous-looking cul-de-sac, and the proposed houses have been configured so they harmonise with the footprint of the existing houses. The main layout issue appears to be the proximity of the surrounding trees and the extent they overshadow the proposed gardens and rear elevations of units 1 and 3; however I understand that Dick Jackson has no issues. It should also be noted that the main rooms are served by windows on the other side of these houses. Elevations The roof has an unusual Italianate profile which is justified as it echoes the shallow roofs of the existing neighbouring properties. The exaggerated sweep and asymmetry of the rainwater downpipes on the houses could look untidy; however the architect has explained they have been designed to be a self-supporting feature employing unpainted galvanised steel. On balance, the overall composition can be commended for its striking / individual form; the revised drawings also show a more consistent composition of the longer frontage of units 2 and 3 that works better and complements the striking central archway. The solar panels would be better if they employed an integrated tile system; however the shallow profile of the roof will reduce their prominence. 29

30 WSCC Highways Access and Visibility The site is situated to the north of Crawley Down. The site is to be accessed via Gage Close, which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The proposal will in essence result in an extension of Gage Close to serve the development. There has been limited detail provided on the access roads detail. The access road should take the form of a 5metre wide shared surface arrangement. This would be considered suitable as this will be a low speed, low traffic environment. Again it has not been indicated whether the applicant intends to adopt the road under a Section 38 Agreement with WSCC. This should be confirmed prior to any grant of planning consent. A review of the Gage Close/ Aviary Way junction indicates that, there have been no recorded accidents within the last 3 years and that there is no evidence to suggest that the access and local highway network are operating unsafely. Capacity Given the small scale of the proposal a TRICS assessment is not required. It is recognised that this proposal would give rise to a more intensive use of Gage Close and the junction to Aviary Way. However the proposal for 5 dwellings is not anticipated to result in any highway capacity concerns. Construction Matters relating to access during the construction of the proposed would need to be agreed prior to any works commencing. Vehicular access to the site is possible only from Gage Close. A comprehensive construction management plan would be sought through condition should permission be granted. The construction management plan should amongst other things set out how deliveries are to be managed along Gage Close in light of the carriageway width and presence of other vulnerable road users. Parking A total of 11 car parking spaces will be provided on site. This provision has been considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. The proposed provision does exceed the requirement generated by way of the PDC. Refuse collection will take place from within the site. The waste collection authority should be consulted to obtain their views on the suitability of this arrangement from their point of view. Within the appendices there has been a swept path analysis provided showing how a larger vehicle including a refuse vehicle can safely turn within the site. Sustainability Although the site does not benefit from an established local cycle network, the wide roads and low speeds enables cycling to be a viable alternative for shorter journeys. The main roads connecting Crawley Down to the larger urban centres tend to be relatively narrow and unlit, appealing more to experienced and confident cyclists. 30

31 The site is within walking distance of two bus stops with frequent services to East Grinstead and Crawley, where trains are available for an onward journey. East Grinstead and Crawley are likely to be the closest major employment centres to the site as well as the location for secondary education. Conclusion The LHA does not consider that the proposal for 5 dwellings would have 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (para 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. No highway objection would be raised subject to the following conditions: Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, o the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, o the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, o the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, o the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, o the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, o the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, o the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), o measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, o details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. Cycle parking No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies. 31

32 Haywards Heath 2. DM/15/2923 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey BEACON HEIGHTS 4 CHURCH ROAD HAYWARDS HEATH WEST SUSSEX DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF 24 NO. RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS IN TWO LINKED 4 STOREY BLOCKS, COMPRISING 2 NO. 1-BEDROOM APARTMENTS AND 22NO. 2- BEDROOM APARTMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS. MR TERRY BRIGHTMORE GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Built Up Areas / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order Points / Tree Preservation Order Points / Tree Preservation Order Points / Tree Preservation Order Points / ODPM CODE: Smallscale Major Dwellings 13 WEEK DATE: 19th October

33 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Sandra Ellis / Cllr Jonathan Ash-Edwards / CASE OFFICER: Mr Andrew Watt EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and replacement with two linked 4-storey blocks of 24 flats (22 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed). As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The proposal would have benefits in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainable development, as envisaged by the NPPF. The site is within a highly sustainable location within the town centre of Haywards Heath, and the layout, scale and detailed design of the proposed development would be in keeping with the surrounding area, so would not cause significant harm. It is not considered that the proposal would result in a significantly harmful impact to neighbouring properties. No highway safety issues have been identified. While the loss of protected trees is regrettable, replacement planting is sought through condition to soften the development. The biodiversity of the site would be protected through the implementation of condition. Other conditions can be imposed regarding drainage, contaminated land, sustainability, construction, cycle storage and refuse storage facilities. Overall, it is not considered that any adverse impact of the proposal would outweigh the substantial benefits of providing new dwellings in highly sustainable locations in the District. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with policies G1, G2, G3, C5, B1, B2, B3, B4, B7, H2, H3, H4, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP1, DP2, DP5, DP6, DP18, DP19, DP24, DP25, DP28, DP29, DP36, DP37, DP39 and DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies E8, E11, E13, E14, E15, E16, T5 and H1 of the draft Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework therefore that it should be approved. 33

34 RECOMMENDATION Recommendation A It is recommended that, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning obligation to secure the required level of infrastructure contributions and an affordable housing commuted sum, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A. Recommendation B If by 18 January 2016, the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed planning obligation securing the necessary financial contributions, then it is recommended that planning permission be refused at the discretion of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning for the following reason: "The application fails to comply with Policies G3 and H4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policies DP18 and DP29 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies E2 and T5 of the draft Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the infrastructure required to serve the development." SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS Haywards Heath Society: No objection in principle. The Society's concerns regarding height and mass of the development, positioning of the bin stores, parking provision and vegetation protection appear to have been addressed by the proposer. It is pleasing to note green issues referred to by a Member have been adopted. It is believed the street scene will be improved by this development. 1 letter of objection: Proposed building will be out of character in this part of Haywards Heath, too tall and box-like in appearance; would generate a lot of extra cars, motorbikes, scooters and skateboards on the pavements, noise and disturbance at night, adjacent to elderly folk who all like to live in peace in quiet in our declining years; intention to build into the garden space of Beacon Height, ignoring existence of many wild flowers and fungi, among them orchids and lady'stresses; plans do not respect the preserved trees on the site or the shrubs that will be removed, destroying the nesting places of many birds, what would happen to foxes, hedgehogs, rabbits/hares?; no dustbins shown on plans. 1 letter of comment: A former owner sold land to Help The Aged, who wilfully allowed the house and garden to fall into rack and ruin (to justify future demolition?) and as a former friend of said owner (who died in 1996), it is my public duty to inform you before you reach a decision on this application how the owner was treated and to ensure his wishes are respected, i.e. that his beloved Beacon Heights was never to be demolished but be used for senior citizens recreation rooms. 34

35 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS MSDC Environmental Protection and Contaminated Land Officer Conditions requested. MSDC Drainage No objection, subject to condition. MSDC Housing Applicant's viability report was independently assessed by the District Valuer who found that it would not be viable for affordable units to be provided on site but that a commuted sum of 25,000 offered by the developer would be viable. If the site is approved for development we will require an automatic viability review to be triggered within the section 106 should the scheme not be delivered within a specific timescale. MSDC Leisure and Wellbeing Proposal will attract a contribution towards local leisure infrastructure totalling 55,384. MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer Informative requested. MSDC Tree and Landscape Officer No objection raised at pre-application stage. MSDC Urban Designer This scheme has been the subject of pre-application negotiation and the massing, the overall design approach and the layout is generally supported. Nevertheless the quality of the contemporary designed façade is dependent on the detailing and both the Design Panel and I have a number of concerns on this; the clarity and consistency of the drawings also needs to be addressed. My support of this scheme is therefore dependent on these issues being resolved in addition to some layout concerns especially in respect of the location of the cycle store. Because of the number of different points, this is probably more than can be reasonably covered by condition. MSDC Waste Contracts Officer (pre-application comments on 2 options) No objection. WSCC Flood Risk Management No objection. WSCC Highways No objection, subject to conditions. WSCC Infrastructure Proposal will attract a contribution towards county infrastructure totalling 57,

36 Southern Water No objection, subject to condition and informatives. Sussex Police To be reported. MSDC Design Panel (27 July 2015) Recommendation: The Panel support the scheme subject to amendments to the design. Calyx Environmental Ltd Consultant Ecologist No objection, subject to condition. TOWN COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS Despite having reservations about the limited number of parking spaces proposed for this development, Members of the Town Council have no objections to the application. However, it is requested that if refuse is to be collected by a commercial operator, this should always take place after 7:00am. This would ensure that residents would not be disturbed at an unreasonable hour. INTRODUCTION Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and replacement with two linked 4-storey blocks of 24 flats (22 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed). RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None relevant. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The site is located in an elevated position on the southern side of Church Road at the junction with St. Wilfrid's Way within the built up area of Haywards Heath. It consists of a vacant 2-storey detached Victorian building (plus a small area on the second floor) set within a verdant 0.23ha plot. There are 4 trees within the site protected by Tree Preservation Orders (CU/1/TPO/87) and the land slopes down gently from north to south. To the east is a more modern 2/3-storey block of retirement flats (The Heights), which shares the access, and to the west, on the opposite side of St Wilfrid's Way, is a fairly modern 3-storey block of flats (St Wilfrids Court). Beyond that is the Grade II* listed St Wilfrid's Church. Opposite the site to the north is a car park with flats beyond well set back from the road. To the south is the MSDC-owned Orchards car park, which very recently (June 2015) gained planning permission for an extension, including the removal of a number of trees and vegetation (DM/15/1010). The site at Beacon Heights was sold to the applicant by MSDC. 36

37 APPLICATION DETAILS Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and replacement with two linked 4-storey blocks of 24 flats (22 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed), 12m in height. 12 car parking spaces will be provided at the southern end of the site, with access gained off St Wilfrid's Way, together with refuse storage, external drying area and 50 cycle parking spaces. The existing access from the north will be retained. The density of development will be 104 dph (dwellings per hectare). No affordable housing will be provided, due to viability, although the developer is willing to make a 25,000 commuted sum payable in lieu of any on-site affordable provision. Materials will comprise brick elevations (including recessed panels, recessed balconies and a planted green wall) with bronze metal cladding on the set back third floor, metal coping and aluminium window frames. 6 private garden areas are to be provided at the ground floor level. All the vegetation screen to the west will be removed, including a protected Western Hemlock and Beech. The protected Wellingtonia and Western Red Cedar to the east of the site will be retained and replanting will be undertaken along the northern, western and southern boundaries, partly to offset the loss of trees that have been permitted to accommodate and extension of the council-owned car park to the south. LIST OF POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (May 2004) G1 (sustainable development) G2 (sustainable development) G3 (infrastructure requirements) C5 (nature conservation) B1 (design) B2 (residential estate developments) B3 (residential amenities) B4 (energy and water conservation) B7 (trees and development) H2 (density and dwelling mix) H3 (infill within built-up areas) H4 (affordable housing) T4 (transport requirements in new developments) T5 (parking standards) T6 (cycle parking) CS13 (land drainage) Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (Feb 2006) Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document (Jul 2006) Haywards Heath Town Centre Master Plan Supplementary Planning Document (Jun 2007) Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan (Draft Consultation Version, Jan 2014) Consulted on draft Plan Material planning consideration but little weight 37

38 The most relevant policies are: Policy E8: The design of new housing and commercial development proposals are required to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage into new development. Policy E11: Developers must demonstrate how their proposal will protect and reinforce the local character within the locality of the site. Proposals affecting a listed building or conservation area or their setting must conserve and enhance their special quality and distinctive character. This will include having regard to the following design elements; - height, scale, spacing, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings, - the scale, design and materials of the development (highways, footways, open space and landscape), and is sympathetic to the setting of any heritage asset, - respects the natural contours of a site and protects and sensitively incorporates natural features such as trees, hedges and ponds within the site, - creates safe, accessible and well-connected environments that meet the needs of users, - will not result in unacceptable levels of light, noise, air or water pollution, - makes best use of the site to accommodate development. Policy E13: Development proposals, particularly where sited on the edge of Haywards Heath or on a high spot in the town, must show how it will maintain visual connections with the countryside. Policy E14: The design of new development should include the 'forgotten' elements from the start of the design process and this should include the following items: - bin stores and recycling facilities, - cycle stores, - meter boxes, - lighting, - flues and ventilation ducts, - gutters and pipes, - satellite dishes and telephone lines. Policy E15: Proposals for new residential development must provide good quality private outdoor space which is appropriate to the development proposed and take into account the character of the locality of the site Policy E16: Design car parking so that it fits in with the character of the proposed development. Policy T5: Funding from developer contributions and WSCC Highways will be required to support capacity improvements at the junctions of A272/A273 and B2112/ Haywards Heath Relief Road. A detailed review of traffic flows on Bannister Way and the capacity of the roundabout at Commercial Square are required. Policy H1: New housing developments (additional to those with planning permission but not yet built or on allocated/committed sites at January 2014 will be supported in principle within the built up area of the town. In addition land is allocated land for approximately 154 new homes. 38

39 Beacon Heights is identified as site S3 in this policy as supporting potentially 30 dwellings. Draft Mid Sussex District Plan (MSDP) The Pre-Submission District Plan was published on the 12th June The Plan is a material planning consideration but little weight can be given to the Plan at this stage. The most relevant policies are: Policy DP1: Sustainable Development in Mid Sussex Policy DP2: Sustainable Economic Development Policy DP5: Housing Policy DP6: Settlement Hierarchy Policy DP18: Securing Infrastructure Policy DP19: Transport Policy DP24: Character and Design Policy DP25: Dwelling Space Standards Policy DP28: Housing Mix Policy DP29: Affordable Housing Policy DP36: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows Policy DP37: Biodiversity Policy DP39: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy DP41: Flood Risk and Drainage National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Mar 2012) The NPPF sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking, the document provides the following advice at paragraph 187: "Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Paragraph 197 states that: "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development." 39

40 Planning Practice Guidance (Mar 2014) Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standard (Mar 2015) ASSESSMENT (CONSIDERATION OF KEY ISSUES) The main issues for consideration are: o The principle of development; o The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area; o The standard of accommodation; o The impact on neighbouring amenity; o Highways matters; o Drainage; o Sustainability; o Impact on trees; o Biodiversity; o Infrastructure contributions; o Affordable housing; o Whether the proposal would be sustainable development; and o Planning Balance and Conclusions Principle of development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) Any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point, the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. 40

41 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: - approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." As such, if a planning application accords with the policies in the development plan then it should be approved provided there are no other material considerations that would indicate otherwise. Whilst the NPPF discounts private residential gardens from the definition of 'previously developed land', as the site falls within the built up area of Haywards Heath as defined in the MSLP, the principle of infill development accords with policy H3. This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." It could be argued that as policy H3 is a criteria-based policy that is concerned with housing provision (namely permitting housing subject to various criteria being met) that policy H3 is not up to date because of the absence of a 5 year housing land supply as required by the NPPF. However it is considered that the various criteria set out in policy H3 are reflective of the aims of the NPPF. As such it is still relevant to assess the application against policy H3. Policy H3 states: "Within defined built-up areas permission will be given to proposals for residential development where the following criteria are met: (a) the development does not involve the significant loss of an area of nature conservation or an open or wooded area of land which in its own right makes an important contribution to the urban environment and cannot be satisfactorily replaced or compensated for; (b) the land or building is not within an established business area and is not allocated for any other use in this Local Plan; (c) efficient use is made of the land in terms of density and as general guidance residential development should be provided at average net densities of at least 30 dwellings per hectare; 41

42 (d) the character and form, respects that of the locality (a detailed site and landscape appraisal together with a design statement will be required); (e) includes a high quality environment for prospective occupiers including appropriate landscaping and open space; (f) the provision for car parking and vehicle manoeuvring does not significantly reduce garden areas, including front gardens, or adversely affect adjoining property; and (g) the requirements of design policies B1 and B2. In Conservation Areas and Areas of Townscape Character infill and redevelopment proposals will be carefully controlled to ensure that the specific character of the area is preserved." It is considered that the application complies with all of the relevant criteria of policy H3. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF, in order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. ASSESSMENT OF MAIN ISSUES Design and visual impact on the character of the area Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan promotes high quality design, construction and layout in new buildings and Policy B2 encourages good quality residential estate development. Policy H3 seeks to ensure that the character and form of new development respects that of the locality and includes a high quality environment for prospective occupiers. Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan states: "All development and surrounding spaces, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings and replacement dwellings, will be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of the towns and villages while being sensitive to the countryside. All applicants will be required to demonstrate that development: - is of high quality design and layout and includes appropriate landscaping and greenspace; - contributes positively to, and clearly defines, public and private realms and should normally be designed with building frontages facing streets and public open spaces; - creates a sense of place while addressing the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape; - protects open spaces, trees and gardens that contribute to the character of the area; - protects valued townscapes and the separate identity and character of towns and villages; - does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings, including taking account of the impact on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight; - creates a pedestrian-friendly layout that is safe, well connected, legible and accessible; 42

43 - incorporates well integrated parking that does not dominate the street environment; - positively addresses sustainability considerations in the layout and the building design." Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a set of core landuse planning principles that should underpin decision-taking, including the notion that planning should: "always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings." Paragraph 56 states: "The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people." Paragraph 58 outlines the principles of good design: "Local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments: - will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; - establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; - optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; - respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; - create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and - are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping." Paragraph 61 states: "Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment." The council's Urban Designer and Design Panel have both reviewed the application (as set out in Appendix B) and raise no objection to the scale, layout and detailed design. It is considered that, subject to appropriate facing materials and design details being resolved through condition, the proposal would be sympathetic to the surrounding area and accordingly would comply with the above policies and guidance. 43

44 Standard of accommodation Policy H3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan requires new residential development in defined built-up areas to include a high quality environment for prospective occupiers. Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of future occupants of new dwellings. Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. The development has been designed in accordance with these standards. Dedicated space for refuse/recycling would also be provided. Impact on neighbouring amenity Policies B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan aim to protect amenity. The main properties affected by the proposal would be at The Heights to the east, with the nearest corner to corner distance of 8.4m; and St Wilfrids Court being 22m away at its nearest point. However, it is not considered that the relationship between either property and the proposal would be overbearing or would result in any loss of privacy to existing occupiers. Conditions are recommended to mitigate construction noise and disturbance and, as such, the above policies would be met. Access, parking and impact on highway safety Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states that proposals for new development should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Policy T5 outlines the requirements for parking provision and access to new developments, in conjunction with the council's (maximum) parking standards, as set out in the Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. Policy T6 requires provision of cycle storage facilities in new developments. Policy DP19 the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development to: be sustainably located to minimise the need for travel; promote alternative means of transport to the private car, including provision of suitable facilities for secure and safe cycle parking; not cause a severe cumulative impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion; be designed to adoptable standards, or other standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority, including road widths and size of garages; and provide adequate car parking in accordance with parking standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority or in accordance with the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. 44

45 Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: "All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: - the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; - safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and - improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe." The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application, in terms of the proposed access. While noting that the parking provision is below the usual parking standard, it is nevertheless acknowledged that the site is in a highly sustainable location and parking restrictions are in place along Church Road, so future occupiers will be aware of the situation before purchasing any property. Alternative modes of transport are easily accessible in this location (buses and trains) and cycle parking is provided in a communal area on the ground floor (40 spaces). All these matters can be secured by condition and so would comply with the above policies and guidance. Drainage Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks to ensure that sites on which new development is provided can be adequately drained. Policy DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development proposals to follow a sequential riskbased approach, ensure development is safe across its lifetime and not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. In areas that have experienced flooding in the past, use of Sustainable Drainage Systems should be implemented unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. The council's Drainage Engineer has assessed this application and it is considered that this matter can be suitably dealt with by condition, so there should be no conflict with these policies. Sustainability Policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan requires all new development proposals to maximise opportunities for efficient use of energy, water and materials and use of natural drainage. Policy DP39 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan specifies that all new major and residential development proposals must address the following aspects of sustainable design and construction: energy efficiency, waste and resources, water use and resilience to climate change. Paragraph 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: "Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon 45

46 energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development." Paragraph 96 states: "In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: - comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and - take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption." A Sustainability Statement has been submitted to accompany the application, which can be viewed on file. The measures specified are considered acceptable and a condition is imposed to ensure compliance with the above policies and guidance. Impact on trees Policy B7 of the Local Plan seeks to retain trees as far as possible for their amenity value. Policy DP36 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan states that: "The District Council will support the protection and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerows, and encourage new planting. In particular, ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will be protected." Although the proposal will result in the loss of trees, they have been justified by the loss of a virtually identical protected tree for the extended car park to the south. Whilst regrettable, the proposal does propose some replacement planting to soften the development and as the council's Tree Officer raised no objection to this, it is considered that the application would be acceptable in accordance with the above policies. Biodiversity Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) lists species of animal (other than birds) which are provided special protection under the Act. In addition to the protection afforded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), certain species are also covered by European legislation. These species are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, 7c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Chapter 11 of the NPPF advises that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve or enhance biodiversity, and that 'opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.' In particular, paragraph 118 of the NPPF states: "When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles [such as]: - if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; 46

47 - opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. - planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh its loss." Local Plan Policy C5 requires proposals for development to minimise their impact on features of nature conservation importance. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Bat Survey Report have been submitted as part of this application. It concludes that the building, scattered trees and introduced shrub has the potential to support nesting birds. The building is not classified as a Bat roost. As such, the demolition of the building can take place (provided it is outside the bird nesting season, March to August inclusive) without contravening any wildlife legislation and planning policy pertaining to Bats. Mitigation and enhancements include incorporating two bird boxes and one sparrow terrace and a bat box. The council's Ecological consultant has assessed this information and raises no objection, subject to a condition to secure the above mitigation measures. As such, the above policies, guidance and legislation would be met. Infrastructure contributions The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's policy on planning obligations in paragraphs 203 and 204. Respectively, these paragraphs state: "Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition." and: "Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: - necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - directly related to the development; and - fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development." Policy G3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP18 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan both require applicants to provide for the costs of additional infrastructure required to service their developments and mitigate their impact. These are usually secured through the signing of a legal agreement. All requests for infrastructure payments must meet the 3 tests of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, which are as set out above. The applicant is progressing a Section 106 Legal Agreement to contribute towards local and county infrastructure, as set out below: 47

48 County Council Contributions: 57,396 (TOTAL) Education - Primary 15,804 Education - Secondary 17,009 Education - 6th Form N/A Libraries 4,287 Waste N/A Fire & Rescue N/A No. of Hydrants 1 TAD 20,295 District Council Contributions: 68,234 (TOTAL) Children's playing space 22,796 (improvements to play area at Victoria Park) Formal sport 22,719 (towards refurbishment of skate park in Victoria Park) Community Buildings 9,869 (improvements to The Yews at junction of Boltro Road and Muster Green) AND Local Community Infrastructure 12,850 (Projects to be confirmed) GRAND TOTAL 125,630 A draft undertaking is being progressed and, if satisfactorily completed, would meet the above policies and guidance. Affordable housing and housing mix Policy H4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan requires the provision of 30% affordable housing units in new developments of 15 or more units or where the site are exceeds 0.5ha. In certain circumstances, the Local Planning Authority may consider accepting a commuted payment towards the provision of an appropriate amount of affordable housing on a suitable site other than on the development site itself. The developer has submitted a Viability Report to justify why the proposed development would not be viable if any affordable housing were to be provided, but has offered 25,000 as a commuted sum for affordable provision elsewhere. The council commissioned the District Valuer to independently assess this information, who confirmed that this scheme would not be viable for affordable units to be provided on site. This residual sum is being secured through a legal agreement and, as specified by the council's Housing team, an automatic viability review should be triggered (within the agreement) should the scheme not be delivered within a specific timescale. This would ensure compliance with the above policy. 48

49 As to the mix of units, while such a large proportion of 2-bed units would not normally give rise to a good mix, as this is a flatted development, there is a need for smaller units within the town and District and, given the benefits of the proposal as a whole, it is considered that these would outweigh a less than optimal housing mix. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitutes the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The economic role The proposed development would result in the creation of construction jobs during the build period. The additional population could help generate more local spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services, and generate New Homes Bonus funding as well as additional Council Tax receipts. These are all material considerations that weigh in favour of the development. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the economic role of sustainable development. Social role The provision of 24 new dwellings will make small but a useful contribution to the district's housing supply and would help meet the identified need for housing. The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being." Due to the location of the site within the town centre of Haywards Heath where there are a number of services, it is considered that the location of the site is highly sustainable. Overall it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the social role of sustainable development. Environmental role The proposed development is on a vacant site which was formerly (and technically still is) a garden area associated with the main building. It is furthermore on land that is free from national designations, i.e. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park, which cover 60 per cent of the district. As set out above, it is considered that the proposal would be sympathetic to the character of this highly sustainable urban location and the proposed replanting will offset the loss of protected trees on the site (which have also been permitted on adjoining land to the south). It is therefore considered that the design of the proposed scheme would 49

50 ultimately enhance the built environment, by bringing the land back into productive use. The proposal would not be within the setting of the Grade II* listed St. Wilfrid s Church due to the intervening block of flats. As such, the environmental role of sustainable development would be satisfied by this proposal. Planning Balance and Conclusions As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The proposal would have benefits in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainable development, as envisaged by the NPPF. The site is within a highly sustainable location within the town centre of Haywards Heath, and the layout, scale and detailed design of the proposed development would be in keeping with the surrounding area, so would not cause significant harm. It is not considered that the proposal would result in a significantly harmful impact to neighbouring properties. No highway safety issues have been identified. While the loss of protected trees is regrettable, replacement planting is sought through condition to soften the development. The biodiversity of the site would be protected through the implementation of condition. Other conditions can be imposed regarding drainage, contaminated land, sustainability, construction, cycle storage and refuse storage facilities. Overall, it is not considered that any adverse impact of the proposal would outweigh the substantial benefits of providing new dwellings in highly sustainable locations in the District. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with policies G1, G2, G3, C5, B1, B2, B3, B4, B7, H2, H3, H4, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP1, DP2, DP5, DP6, DP18, DP19, DP24, DP25, DP28, DP29, DP36, DP37, DP39 and DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies E8, E11, E13, E14, E15, E16, T5 and H1 of the draft Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework therefore that it should be approved. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

51 2. Pre-commencement conditions No development shall commence until a schedule and/or samples of materials and finishes to be used for the external walls, windows and roofs of the proposed building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 3. No development shall commence until details of proposed boundary screen walls/fences/hedges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such boundary screen walls/fences/hedges associated with them have been erected or planted. The boundary treatments approved shall remain in place in perpetuity or unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the appearance of the area and protect the amenities of adjacent residents and to accord with policies H3 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 4. No development shall commence unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include the proposed green wall, indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 5. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 51

52 6. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed surface water drainage and foul water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is satisfactorily drained and to accord with the NPPF requirements, Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 7. No development shall commence until details of existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall not be implemented otherwise than in accordance with such details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of adjacent residents or the appearance of the locality and to accord with policies B1 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 8. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, - the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, - the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, - the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, - the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, - the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, - the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, - the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), - details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area and to accord with policies B3 and T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policies DP19 and DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 52

53 9. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall include amongst other matters details of: hours of construction working; measures to control noise affecting nearby residents; wheel cleaning/chassis cleaning facilities; dust control measures; pollution incident control and site contact details in case of complaints. The construction works shall thereafter be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan, unless any variations are otherwise first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and to comply with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 10. Construction phase Works of construction or demolition, including the use of plant and machinery, necessary for implementation of this consent shall be limited to the following times: Monday-Friday: 0800hrs-1800hrs; Saturday: 0900hrs- 1300hrs; and Sundays and Bank Holidays: no work permitted. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 11. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until secure and covered cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall thereafter be retained for their designated use. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car and to comply with policy T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 12. No development shall commence until the vehicular access onto St Wilfrids Way serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 13. No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the existing vehicular access onto Church Road has been physically closed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This access shall not be used for construction purposes. 53

54 Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 14. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 15. No dwelling shall be occupied until the visibility splays of 2.4metres by 43metres have been provided at the centre of the proposed site vehicular access onto Dunstall Avenue. These visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions over a height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 16. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the refuse/recycling storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, to comply with policies B1, B3 and H3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 17. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Sustainability Statement submitted as part of the application. On completion of the development, an independent final report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposals in the Statement have been implemented. Reason: To ensure that measures to make the development sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development, in accordance with policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 18. Development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations set out in in the following report submitted in support of the application: Ecological Appraisal: Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Bat Survey Report by PJC Ecology, PJC/3673/15, dated 19/05/15. Reason: to ensure reasonable steps are taken to avoid impacts on and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, para 54

55 118, Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP37 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan. 19. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a method statement, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason: In the interests of health of future occupiers and to accord with Policy CS20 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 1. You are advised that this planning permission requires compliance with a planning condition(s) before development commences. You are therefore advised to contact the case officer as soon as possible, or you can obtain further information from: (a fee of 97 will be payable, and it would be appreciated if you could submit this information electronically). If you carry out works prior to a predevelopment condition being discharged then a lawful start will not have been made and you will be liable to enforcement action. 2. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: - No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: ) or 5. In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within 55

56 the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Location Plan Block Plan Site Plan Existing Elevations Existing Floor Plans Location Plan 100 P Block Plan 101 P Proposed Site Plan 102 P Proposed Floor Plans 103 P Proposed Floor Plans 104 P Street Scene 109 P Proposed Elevations 110 P Proposed Elevations 111 P Sections 112 P Proposed Elevations APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS MSDC Environmental Protection and Contaminated Land Officer I have considered the above application and would recommend the following conditions. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall include amongst other matters details of: hours of construction working; measures to control noise affecting nearby residents; wheel cleaning/chassis cleaning facilities; dust control measures; pollution incident control and site contact details in case of complaints. The construction works shall thereafter be carried out at all times in 56

57 accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan, unless any variations are otherwise first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a method statement, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. It is not clear from the plans and elevations whether there is any plant or machinery sited on the roof of the building for example, lift housing, air condition units. If such plant is to be located on the roof, can details be forwarded in order that a decision can be made on whether a noise assessment is required. MSDC Drainage Summary Consultation Response: This submitted application is suitable to be dealt with by condition. We understand the existing flood risks associated with this proposed development to be: 1. No known or recorded flood risks associated with this site. We would expect the flood risk to change post development in the following way: 1. Increase in impermeable area creating or exacerbation local flood risk. The proposed development has shown the following in mitigation of the flood risk: 1. Flood risk assessment has shown associated flood risk for proposed development remains low with the use of methods such as attenuation and discharge to local public sewerage systems. Useful links: Planning Practice Guidance - Flood Risk and Coastal Change Flood Risk Assessment for Planning Applications For a development located within Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3, which is greater than 1 hectare in area, or where a significant flood risk has been identified: A Flood Risk Assessment (1) will need to be submitted that identifies what the flood risks are and how they will change in the future. Also whether the proposed development will create or exacerbate flood risk, and how it is intended to manage flood risk post development. (1)This level of assessment will need to be carried out to our satisfaction by a suitably qualified person. For the use of SuDS(1)(2)(3): Written Statement (HCWS 161) - Department for Communities and Local Government - sets out the expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided to new developments wherever this is appropriate. Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus have 30percent capacity for climate change(4). A maintenance and management plan will also need to be arranged and submitted that shows how all 57

58 SuDS infrastructure is kept to operate at its optimum for the lifetime of the development. This will need to identify who will undertake this work and how it will be funded. Also, measures and arrangements in place to ensure perpetuity and demonstrate the serviceability requirements, including scheduled maintenance, inspections, repairs and replacements, will need to be submitted. A clear timetable for the schedule of maintenance can help to demonstrate this. (1)Suitable SuDS Guidance can be found using CIRIA Guidance Document C697 - SuDS Manual (2)20percent climate change for industrial and commercial development proposals (3)Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest Soakaway Design (4)Submitted SuDS designs will need to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person Useful links: Sustainable drainage systems technical standards Water.People.Places.- A guide for master planning sustainable drainage into developments For the use of attenuation, swales and soakaways(1): Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus have 30percent capacity for climate change(2). (1) Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest Soakaway Design (2)20% climate change for industrial and commercial development proposals For the use of Public Sewers(1): Copies of the approval of the adoption of foul and surface water sewers and/or the connection to foul and surface water sewers from the sewerage undertaker, which agrees a rate of discharge, will need to be submitted. (1)Any design and construction of sewers should follow the standards of the WRC guidance - Sewers for Adoption - currently 7 th edition. Suitable conditions for this proposed development: (Multiple Dwellings) The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed surface water drainage and foul water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. MSDC Housing The application provides for a development of 24 units in total giving rise to an affordable housing requirement of 7 units (30percent). The developer provided evidence that it would not be viable for the affordable housing to be provided. We had this independently assessed by the District Valuer who found that it would not be viable for affordable units to be provided on site but that a commuted sum of 25,000 offered by the developer would be viable. If the site is approved for development we 58

59 will require an automatic viability review to be triggered within the section 106 should the scheme not be delivered within a specific timescale. MSDC Leisure and Wellbeing Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plans for the development of 24 residential dwellings at Beacon Heights, 4 Church Road, Haywards Heath RH16 3PB on behalf of the Head of Leisure and Sustainability. The following leisure contributions are required to enhance capacity and provision due to increased demand for facilities in accordance with the Local Plan policy and SPD which require contributions for developments of over 5 units. CHILDRENS PLAYING SPACE Victoria Park, owned and managed by the Council, is the nearest locally equipped play area approximately 250m from the development site. This facility will face increased demand from the new development and a contribution of 22,796 is required to make improvements to children's playing space. These facilities are within the distance thresholds for children's play outlined in the Development and Infrastructure SPD FORMAL SPORT In the case of this development, a financial contribution of 22,719 is required toward the refurbishment of the skate park in Victoria Park. COMMUNITY BUILDINGS The provision of community facilities is an essential part of the infrastructure required to service new developments to ensure that sustainable communities are created. In the case of this development, a financial contribution of 9,869 is required to make improvements to The Yews, a multi-purpose community building situated in the middle of Haywards Heath at the junction of Boltro Road and Muster Green. In terms of the scale of contribution required, these figures are calculated on a per head formulae based upon the number of units proposed and average occupancy (as laid out in the Council's Development and Infrastructure SPD) and therefore is commensurate in scale to the development. The Council maintains that the contributions sought as set out are in full accordance with the requirements set out in Circular 05/2005 and in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer I note from the list of planning applications received during the week 23rd July 2015 to 29 th July 2015 that the applications listed below will require address allocation if approved. Planning application number DM/15/2717 DM/15/2665 DM/15/3046 DM/15/2893 DM/15/

60 DM/15/2930 DM/15/2990 DM/15/3023 Please could I ask you to ensure that the following informative is added to any decision notice granting approval: Informative: Info29 The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming & Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on MSDC Tree and Landscape Officer No objection raised at pre-application stage. MSDC Urban Designer Summary and Overall Assessment This scheme has been the subject of pre-application negotiation and the massing, the overall design approach and the layout is generally supported. Nevertheless the quality of the contemporary designed façade is dependent on the detailing and both the Design Panel and I have a number of concerns on this; the clarity and consistency of the drawings also needs to be addressed. My support of this scheme is therefore dependent on these issues being resolved in addition to some layout concerns especially in respect of the location of the cycle store. Because of the number of different points, this is probably more than can be reasonably covered by condition. Loss of the Existing House The existing 2 storey house is a fine Victorian villa; unfortunately it is not listed and has no protection from demolition. It also appears to have been empty for some time and has fallen into disrepair. The 1873 map suggests the building was one of a number of similar houses that characterised Church Road, however in recent years these have been replaced by modern blocks of flats. Consequently, it now looks a bit marooned. Its large classically proportioned windows and decorative facade contrast with starker contemporary frontages that rise to 3 or 4 storeys. For these reasons, I have no objection to its loss providing its replacement is well designed and appropriately addresses its street context. Layout Despite its central location, Church Road is characterised by generously set-back buildings and soft boundaries including a number of large trees that border it, such as the ones on the north-west corner of the application site adjacent to the junction with St Wilfrid's Way. The south and west (St Wilfrid's Way) site boundaries currently feature a largely continuous belt of mature trees. These provide an attractive backdrop and approach 60

61 to Orchards car park. However much of this is due to be lost. On the south side, this is mainly due to the division of ownership with the southern portion of the Beacon Heights garden being divided off (and outside the application site) to provide an extended car park serving the shopping centre (recently granted planning consent). This involves a substantial loss of the existing green backdrop that previously helped to soften the large area of uninterrupted hard standing to the south. In line with pre-application advice, the applicant nevertheless shows the retention of a number of trees on the north-west corner and along St Wilfrid's Way. On the southern boundary the applicant is proposing a line of trees which will compensate to some extent for the combined loss of trees from this scheme and the Orchards car park extension. However there will still be a net loss which will make the boundary feel initially denuded of trees; but with time this should be lessened once they have had an opportunity to mature. The retained Wellingtonia and Western Red Cedar in the heart of the site will also become more visible from the southern side. The new and existing trees and supplementary planting will also help screen and soften the modest area of residential parking at the rear of the site. The staggered building layout at the St Wilfrids Way/Church Road corner responds to the need for a generous set back to allow sufficient separation to safeguard the retained trees in this area. The rear portion of the building will nevertheless extend closer to the site boundary, and trees will need to be removed along St Wilfrid's Way to accommodate this, including the attractive category B Western Hemlock. While the latter is particularly unfortunate this more visible part of the building should still be softened by trees on either side. However the 3 proposed Acer trees (TPO3-5) are uncomfortably tightly grouped - and I feel they should be given marginally more generous spacing (with the tree line consequently extending slightly further northwards). The proposed Church Road building line is slightly in front of the neighbouring 'Heights' building and the existing building. However, the parking has been taken out and the frontage will still be well set back to allow space for 2 liquidambar trees and the layout should in overall terms integrate well with Church Road's soft boundaries. However, the bike store is an inappropriately hard-edged element prominently positioned at the building's entrance. This needs to be re-located at the rear adjacent to the car park where there is adequate space. I am unclear about the boundary treatment. The landscape strategy proposes a horizontal baton fence but this hardly features in the boundary plan (drawing 202). My main concern is the Church Road frontage as the residents may wish to reinforce their enclosure. Great care needs to be taken to retain some openness and avoid a closed-in arrangement; a maintained 1.4m hedge-row should nevertheless be an acceptable compromise, although I would rather see it supplemented with railings and brick posts (rather than a brick wall). Elevations / Massing While the building will be marginally taller than the predominant 3 storey building height along Church Road, it will be approximately the same height as the nearby 61

62 AND AMRO block, while also benefitting from a more generously set-back building line, and a less monumental design. After negotiation, the applicant agreed to reduce the height of the building from 5 to 4 storeys configured as a 3+1 storey set back. Although the set-back dimension of the top floor is modest, the flat roof configuration keeps the overall height down and the employment of a different facing treatment and 3rd floor roof parapet breaks up the façade in a similar way to a conventional eaves line. The previous 5 storey configuration suffered from accentuated verticality that gave it a noticeably different character and massing to the more squat dimensions of the existing building frontages. This has been corrected by the revised Church Road elevation; the articulation of the main frontage in to two asymmetric parts (punctuated by a recessed bay at the entrance point) helps to further break down the scale of the building. However, the punctuation above the entrance is not shown adequately pronounced in the floorplans, and it is not sufficient to rely on a different facing material. A deeper recess / reveal is required as suggested by the shadowing on the elevation drawings; it would also be neater if it married up on the same plane as the top floor. While I support the contemporary language and the apparent discipline of the repeated recessed bays, this will be undermined with inconsistent or poor detailing. I therefore share all the Design Panel's concerns (refer to Notes of Mid Sussex Design Review Panel 27th July 2015). Furthermore, some parts of the elevations are not clearly drawn with shadowing and trees getting in the way. In particular they do not properly show the south elevation of the front part of the building or north elevation of the rear part of the building. In respect of the latter, the design of the green wall is not clear; and we need to be convinced of its credentials as its north facing orientation and proximity to retained trees may curtail its growth; it may be better to fenestrate this elevation instead. The design of the balustrading is also unclear, and it would be helpful if a section drawing could demonstrate the configuration of the PV panels on the roof. The elevations appear to show yellow brick, which is not the local brick colour and does not feature in Church Road. I also feel in combination with its striking contemporary styling, the yellow brick will consequently make the building inappropriately stand-out in the street. I feel a lighter / more neutral coloured red brick would work, and the choice of metal cladding needs to be based on this. MSDC Waste Contracts Officer (pre-application comments on 2 options) I believe both the locations for the bin store would be appropriate for us in terms of access to complete collections. However, being able to reverse the collection vehicle into the parking area at the rear of the flats off St Wilfreds Way would mean we are not blocking any roads and could complete collections in a safer environment. We would need to be able to get within 10 metres of the bin store with the collection vehicle but I do not see this being an issue. I would also recommend that for 24 flats they would need 4 x 1100 litre refuse bins and 4 x 1100 recycling bins. 62

63 WSCC Flood Risk Management West Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), has been consulted on the above proposed development with respect to surface water drainage. The following is the detailed comments of the LLFA relating to surface water flood risk for the proposed development and any associated observations, advice and conditions. Surface Water Flood Risk The site does not have any known surface water flood risk issues from historic events, or highways flooding. Surface water flood modelling does not indicate any risk of surface water flooding within or adjacent to the proposed site. Discharge of surface water from any hard standing and vehicle parking area into a sewer or watercourse should be via a petrol / oil interceptor. Discharge rates should be no greater than original green field run-off and agreed with the LPA. The 'Drainage Strategy' for the proposed development states that 'on site storage of approximately 30cu.m will be provided within a 340mm thick, 30percent voided sub base beneath the proposed car park area'. Voided layers cannot be easily maintained and overtime will become silted, reducing storage. If storage within the voided sub grade is the final design solution for this development the LPA should ensure that suitable silt traps are included within the system and a regular maintenance regime is put in place. Groundwater Risk The site is indicated to be at negligible risk from groundwater flood risk according to the risk susceptibility mapping we hold. This is based on topography, geology and historic groundwater data and does not represented any detailed site specific investigations. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) The detailed designs of the proposed surface water drainage systems have not been included with this application. However assuming the surface water drainage will be managed as indicated in the submitted proposed surface water management strategy this would meet the basic requirements of the NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents as it retains the current runoff rates and discharges to surface water sewer. However following the SuDS hierarchy and the spirit of SuDS implementation, betterment for surface water systems on the new developments should be sought. This could include retention at source through green roofs and attenuation prior to disposal to reduce peak flows. Green roofs, or other associated SuDS landscaping, could significantly improve the local green infrastructure provision and biodiversity impact of the developments whilst having surface water benefits too. Thought should also be given to the reduction in infiltration area associated with the underground elements of the proposal (especially car parks) and potential implications from groundwater interactions. 63

64 The development, if permitted, should be subject to a condition that detailed designs of the surface water system are submitted and approved by the LPA prior to development beginning. The drainage strategy should demonstrate that the surface water runoff generated up to and including the 100 year plus 30percent for climate change critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the current site following the corresponding rainfall event. Provision for long-term maintenance should be provided as part of any SuDs scheme submitted to the LPA. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Where SuDs are used, it must be established that these options are feasible, can be adopted And properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental problems. For example, using soakaways or other infiltration methods on contaminated land carries groundwater pollution risks and may not work in areas with a high water table. If the intention is to dispose water via infiltration, this should be shown to be suitable through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365 before any conditions are discharged. Please note that Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has not yet been implemented and WSCC does not currently expect to act as the SuDS Approval Body (SAB) in this matter. WSCC Highways The application is supported by way of Transport Statement. The TS considers various matters, including trip generation calculated by way of TRICS data. The use of TRICS and the selection parameters applied are considered acceptable. It is accepted that the development would not result in any significant increase in vehicle movements, or any capacity impacts could be considered severe. The development is proposed to be accessed via St Wilfreds Way. This is an unadopted road, which is not the maintenance responsibility of West Sussex County Council. Advice is therefore offered in respects of works onto this. The access appears to be shown as a vehicle crossover, which would be a suitable form of construction given the number of parking spaces to be accessed. Visibility splays of 2.4 by 43 metres are indicated as achieveable. These splays are appropriate for a design speed of 30mph. In practice, observed vehicle speeds are much less. Therefore whilst a significant element of the splay to the north crosses the site, a reduced splay could have been applied. The access is considered acceptable. The existing development on the site has vehicular access onto Church Road. Church Road is adopted highway. If minded to approve this application, a condition should be applied to secure the permanent closure of this access point. The WSCC parking demand calculator has been used. This is forecasting a potential demand for 23 parking spaces. 12 are proposed. There is consequently a potential 64

65 demand for parking that will have to be accommodated elsewhere. There are extensive no waiting at any time restrictions on the surrounding highway, including St Wilfreds Way. As such, there are enforceable restrictions to prevent parking occurring in locations that would be detrimental to highway safety. In terms of accessibility, the site lies within the centre of Haywards Heath. Residents would consequently have a wide range of services that can be reached on foot or cycle. Residents would have a real choice of travel options, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. In conclusion, the proposed access arrangement onto St Wilfreds Way complies with current design guidance. No severe impacts are anticipated as a consequence of this proposal to the public highway. If minded to approve this development, the following conditions are recommended. Access No development shall commence until the vehicular access onto St Wilfreds Way serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. Reason: In the interests of road safety Access closure No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the existing vehicular access onto Church Road has been physically closed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This access shall not be used for construction purposes. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, - the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, - the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, - the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, - the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, - the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, - the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, - the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of 65

66 temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), - details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. WSCC Infrastructure Summary of Contributions Education Library Locality Haywards Heath Population Adjustment Child Product Total Places Required Locality Haywards Heath Contribution towards Hassocks/ Hurstpierpoint/Steyning 0 Contribution towards Burgess Hill 0 Contribution towards East Grinstead/Haywards Heath 4,287 Population Adjustment 34.9 Sqm per population 30/35 Waste Adjusted Net. Households Fire No. Hydrants Population Adjustment /head of additional population TAD- Transport Net Population Increase Net Parking Spaces Net Commercial Floor Space sqm Total Access (commercial only) Summary of Contributions 34.9 Primary Secondary 6th Form TBC N/A N/A S106 type Monies Due Education - Primary 15,804 Education - Secondary 17,009 Education - 6 th Form No contribution required Libraries 4,287 Waste No contribution required Fire & Rescue No contribution required No. of Hydrants TBC TAD 20,295 Total Contribution 57,396 Note: The above summary does not include the installation costs of fire hydrants. Where these are required on developments, (quantity as identified above) as required under the Fire Services Act 2004 they will be installed as a planning obligation and at direct cost to the developer. (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act). Hydrants should be attached to a mains capable of delivering sufficient flow and pressure for fire fighting as required in the National Guidance Document on the Provision of Water for Fire Fighting 3rd Edition ( Appendix 5) The above contributions are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development. 66

67 Planning obligations requiring the above money is understood to accord with the Secretary of State's policy tests outlined by the in the National Planning Policy Framework, The proposal falls within the Mid Sussex District and the contributions comply with the provisions of Mid Sussex District Local Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document- Development and Infrastructure February All TAD contributions have been calculated in accordance with the stipulated local threshold and the methodology adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in November The calculations have been derived on the basis of an increase in 19 Net dwellings, and an additional 2 car parking spaces. Further to the monetary contributions The County Fire Officer advises that the proposed development may need to include the provision of a fire hydrant connected to adequate supplies of water for fire fighting (Contact: David Boarer - Fire Services ). It should also include suitable access for fire brigade vehicles and equipment. Please see below for a Breakdown and explanation of the WSCC Contribution Calculators. Also see the attached spreadsheet for the breakdown of the calculation figures. For further explanation please see the Sussex County Council website ( 5. Deed of Planning Obligations a) As a deed of planning obligations would be required to ensure payment of the necessary financial contribution, the County Council would require the proposed development to reimburse its reasonable legal fees incurred in the preparation of the deed. b) The deed would provide for payment of the financial contribution upon commencement of the development. c) In order to reflect the changing costs, the deed would include arrangements for review of the financial contributions at the date the payment is made if the relevant date falls after 31st March d) Review of the contributions towards school building costs should be by reference to the DfE adopted Primary/Secondary school building costs applicable at the date of payment of the contribution and where this has not been published in the financial year in which the contribution has been made then the contribution should be index linked to the DfE cost multiplier and relevant increase in the RICS BCIS All- In TPI. This figure is subject to annual review. 67

68 e) Review of the contribution towards the provision of additional library floorspace should be by reference to an appropriate index, preferably RICS BCIS All-In TPI. This figure is subject to annual review. Recent experience suggests that where a change in contributions required in relation to a development or the necessity for indexation of financial contributions from the proposed development towards the costs of providing service infrastructure such as libraries is not specifically set out within recommendations approved by committee, applicants are unlikely to agree to such provisions being included in the deed itself. Therefore, it is important that your report and recommendations should cover a possible change in requirements and the need for appropriate indexation arrangements in relation to financial contributions. Please ensure that applicants and their agents are advised that any alteration to the housing mix, size, nature or tenure, may generate a different population and thus require re-assessment of contributions. Such re-assessment should be sought as soon as the housing mix is known and not be left until signing of the section 106 Agreement is imminent. Where the developer intends to keep some of the estate roads private we will require provisions in any s106 agreement to ensure that they are properly built, never offered for adoption and that a certificate from a suitably qualified professional is provided confirming their construction standard. It should be noted that the figures quoted in this letter are based on current information and will be adhered to for 3 months. Thereafter, if they are not consolidated in a signed S106 agreement they will be subject to revision as necessary to reflect the latest information as to cost and need. Southern Water Thank you for your letter of 23/07/2015 Our initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul and surface water sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: "A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: ) or The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that 68

69 arrangements exist for long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should: Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme Specify a timetable for implementation Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. this should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: "Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water." The detailed design for the proposed basement should take into account the possibility of the surcharging of the public sewers. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: "Detailed design of the proposed drainage system should take into account the possibility of surcharging within the public sewerage system in order to protect the development from potential flooding." Due to changes in legislation that came in to force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: ) or Sussex Police To be reported. MSDC Design Panel (27 July 2015) Recommendation: The Panel support the scheme subject to amendments to the design. The Panel liked the overall design concept but were concerned about the detailing especially in respect of the following: -The brick module facade would be undermined with external rainwater downpipes and gutters. These will need to be internally incorporated. -The brick framing pattern might be problematic in terms of sustainability. It will require heavy duty connectors to hold the brick which may cause cold-bridging. -The modules/bays look rather tight / narrow. 69

70 -The suggested simplicity of the repeated bays is a strength, but this may be undermined by untidy / inconsistent elements such as the inconsistent horizontal alignment of the tanked/downstand terrace and the fascia above the 2nd floor windows. -There were reservations about the bronze/brown-coloured top floor. While there was a need for contrast, it was also felt that if the brick was too red, it might generate a heavy-looking façade; a more neutral coloured brick was favoured. -The depth and detailing of the recessed panels. -The detailing of the vertical bricks where they meet at the corner - will brick slips be used? Careful detailing will be required to deliver a quality scheme and the Panel recommended that details be submitted for approval under condition, which they were happy to comment on at a later date. Calyx Environmental Ltd Consultant Ecologist Subject to the following condition, no significant impacts on biodiversity conservation are anticipated: Development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations set out in in the following report submitted in support of the application: Ecological Appraisal: Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Bat Survey Report by PJC Ecology, PJC/3673/15, dated 19/05/15. Reason: to ensure reasonable steps are taken to avoid impacts on and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, para

71 Hassocks 3. DM/15/3309 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey CCHF ALL ABOUT KIDS STAFFORD HOUSE 91 KEYMER ROAD HASSOCKS CONVERSION OF STAFFORD HOUSE INTO 4 APARTMENTS AND ERECTION OF 10 HOUSES IN THE GROUNDS. CCHF ALL ABOUT KIDS GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Built Up Areas / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order Points / / ODPM CODE: Smallscale Major Dwellings 13 WEEK DATE: 12th November

72 WARD MEMBERS: CASE OFFICER: Cllr Gordon Marples / Cllr Peter Martin / Cllr Kevin Burke / Mr Steven King EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of Stafford House into 4 apartments and the erection of 10 houses in the grounds of Stafford House to provide a total of 14 units. This is a resubmission of an extant planning permission for the same development that was approved under reference 12/03748/FUL. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. This proposal was considered to be acceptable in It is not felt that there have been any material changes that would justify a different decision being made on the proposal now to that previously made by the Council. The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also emphasises that a key Government priority is the delivery of new housing. This scheme would deliver new housing within the District, which is a positive benefit, particularly at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as it is required to do. It is therefore considered that the application complies with the NPPF, polices G3, B1, B3, B7, H3, T4, T5, CS6, and CS13 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policies DP18, DP19, DP23, DP24, DP37 and DP41 in the emerging District Plan and can be supported, subject to the completion of a satisfactory planning obligation to secure the necessary infrastructure payments. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A and the completion of a satisfactory planning obligation to secure the necessary infrastructure contribution 72

73 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS 3 letters received -request trees are cut back on boundary with Kymer Gardens -concerned about loss of important trees and the library SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS (Full responses from Consultees are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) County Planning Officer TBR Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions West Sussex County Council Flood Risk Management Team No objection subject to condition Ecological Consultant No objection subject to condition Sussex Police No major concerns with the proposal Drainage Officer No objection subject to condition Community Leisure Officer Requires the following infrastructure contributions CHILDRENS PLAYING SPACE 17,333 FORMAL SPORT 16,266 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS 7,066 Environmental Protection Officer No objection subject to conditions HASSOCKS PARISH COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS Recommend Approval. However the Parish Council would like to raise the question as to why the red boundary line does not include the whole site. By not doing so, the requirement for the provision of 30% social housing does not come into effect. (Following the Planning Committee meeting of , the council has reviewed the Pre-Submission Draft of the District Plan and believes that this application may be contrary to the Affordable Housing Policy DP29) 73

74 Introduction This application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of Stafford House into 4 apartments and the erection of 10 houses in the grounds of Stafford House to provide a total of 14 units. This is a resubmission of an extant planning permission for the same development that was approved under reference 12/03748/FUL. Relevant Planning History Planning permission for this development was approved on under reference number 12/03748/FUL. This planning permission is still extant and will expire on 8 February Site and Surroundings Stafford House is an attractive building that is set in large grounds on the northern side of Keymer Road, towards the eastern end of the village of Hassocks. The site is accessed via a single access point that emerges onto the Keymer Road. Stafford House itself is an attractive 3 storey building that is located some 35m back from the Keymer Road. There are more modern 2-storey buildings that are attached to Stafford House to the west. To the north of Stafford House is Hassocks library. This is a single storey building that has hard surfacing to the south, east and north of it. The north eastern part of the site is given over to hard standing for car parking. The north western part of the site is grassed over with play equipment on it. The south eastern corner of the site is grassed over. The site itself is well enclosed and there are a number of preserved trees around the boundaries of the site. To the west of the site there is a 1.8m fence on part of the boundary. There are also some trees and hedging along part of this boundary. Beyond this are the 2 storey houses that back onto the site. To the north there is a strong tree and hedge screen. Beyond this is a development of houses that has recently been completed. To the northeast of the site is the Beacon Centre. This is a flat roofed community building that has planning permission to be replaced with houses. Some 33m to the east of the library is the Principal's House, which is a two storey dwelling that is within the ownership of the applicants but is not within the site of the planning application. A 1.4m wall with mature trees and hedging beyond this marks the southern boundary. To the southwest there are 2 storey houses and to the southeast there are 2 storey flats. The whole site is within the built up area as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). Stafford House and the adjacent buildings are owned and used by CCHF All About Kids. This is a charity that exists to give disadvantaged children aged between 7 and 11 a range of residential activity and respite breaks. The children that they deal with often experience domestic violence, the effects of alcohol and drug abuse, dangerous environments, bullying and severe poverty. The breaks that the organisation runs are for five nights or a weekend break. The children that come to the site are mainly from London. This is one of the sites that the organisation has in 74

75 the country. The other sites are Wellington College which is an hour outside London and Oundle, Peterborough. Application Details In detail the plans propose the creation of a total of 14 residential units within the site. These would comprise the following mix: Four 2-bedroom flats Four 3-bedroom houses Six 4-bedroom houses In terms of the layout of the site, Stafford House would remain on the site and be converted into four 2-bedroom apartments. The existing more modern buildings to the west of Stafford House would all be demolished. The proposed layout proposes the erection of two detached houses in the south eastern corner of the site. A pair of semi-detached houses would be located to the southwest of Stafford House. Immediately to the south of the Stafford House there would be 4 car barns with 4 car parking spaces in front of the car barn. To the west of Stafford House there would be a detached house with a detached garage. The existing library building would remain and is not part of this planning application. To the northwest of the library there would be a detached house with a detached garage. To the north of the library there would be (running from west to east) a detached house, a pair of semi-detached houses and then a further detached house. In terms of the elevations, there would not be significant changes to Stafford House. The modern external chimney would be removed as would the external fire escape. The proposed houses would be of a traditional Sussex design and would feature local stock bricks, ebony coloured weatherboarding and play clay tile hanging and roof tiles. The road way within the site would be constructed of a Tegula paving and would be a shared surface. The access points to the residential units themselves would be bonded gravel. All of the units would have 2 car parking spaces, with each unit having either a garage or car barn and a space in front of that garage or car barn. The 7 existing spaces for the library would remain. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan G3 Infrastructure B1 Design B3 Neighbour amenity B7 Trees H3 Infill development T4 Highways T5 Parking CS6 Community facilities CS13 Drainage 75

76 Neighbourhood Plan No draft Plan No Weight at this stage District Plan The Pre - Submission District Plan was published on the 12th June The Plan is a material planning consideration but little weight can be given to the Plan at this stage. DP18 Infrastructure DP19 Transport DP23 Community facilities and local services DP24 Character and design DP37 Biodiversity DP41 Flood risk and drainage National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice: "187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Paragraph 197 states that "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development." 76

77 Assessment (Consideration of Key Issues) PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The NPPF, which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. Para 14 of the NPPF States: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: - approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." The principle of the development has been accepted by the previous planning permission that has been granted. This consent does not expire until 8 February 2016 and is therefore capable of being implemented. It is still necessary however to consider this application on its individual merits having regard to the current planning policies that apply and site specific circumstances that apply on the ground now. 77

78 Assessment of the Principle of the development As stated above, the principle of this development was accepted by the previous planning permission that was granted under reference 10/02512/FUL. Since this decision was made the main material change has been in national policy, with the NPPF replacing a number of previous planning policy guidance statements, including PPS3 Housing. The NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development, with a strong emphasis on planning looking positively at applications and looking for solutions rather than problems. There is a strong emphasis on the delivery of new housing, which is a Government priority. It is considered that the principle of the development accords with the NPPF. Local policy remains the same in the form of the MSLP. In terms of material changes on the ground, the most significant development is that planning permission has now been granted on the field to the north of this site for the development of 16 houses under reference 12/00637/FUL and has been completed. Planning permission has also been granted (but not yet implemented) for the redevelopment of the Beacon Centre for houses. Neither the scheme that has been implemented in the field to the north or the extant planning permission at the Beacon Centre has an adverse impact on the current scheme before Members. Overall it is considered that the principle of the development has been established and there are no grounds to come to a different conclusion on this matter now. Design of the proposal The design and layout of the scheme was considered acceptable in It is not felt that there any reasons to depart from that assessment now. The retention of Stafford House is still welcomed. It is an attractive building that contributes to the character of the area and will become the focal point of the redevelopment. The modest changes that are proposed to the external appearance of this building will enhance its appearance. The removal of the more modern additions to the west will also enhance the character and appearance of the area. These later buildings do not have architectural merit. Overall it remains the case that the layout and design of the proposal works well. It is considered that the spacing between the buildings is more than adequate and they are comfortably positioned within the site. The generous spacing between the proposed new units provides sufficient space to safeguard the protected trees, including those around the boundary of the site that screen the development from the surrounds. It is considered that the retention and sensitive conversion of Stafford House accords with the aims of the Hassocks Village Design Statement (VDS). Other aspirations of the VDS would be met as part of the application, including sufficient space being left around the new buildings and the new development being in harmony with the existing surrounds. Sussex Police are satisfied with the layout of the scheme. They are supportive of this arrangement as the dwellings will be outward looking and allow for overlooking and natural surveillance. 78

79 Policy DP25 of the District Plan requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. The development has been designed in accordance with these standards. On this basis, it is considered that the above policies and guidance would be met by this proposal. Neighbour Amenity The impact of the proposal on the amenities of the neighbouring properties was considered to be acceptable in The section of the report dealing with this issue is copied below. "The closest properties to the site are those located on to the west. The house on plot 4 would be some 10m off the western boundary. It would have a bathroom window facing westwards which would be obscure glazed. It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact from this property. The house on plot 5 would be a similar distance from the western boundary. It would only have a first floor landing window facing westwards. Again it is not considered that this will have any adverse impact on the existing properties to the west. The house on plot 6 would be some 10m off the western boundary and would be at an angle to the western boundary. Its detached garage would be some 3m off the boundary. The side elevation facing the west would have a first floor landing window. It is not considered that either this house or its garage will adversely affect the properties to the west. Finally, the house on plot 7 would be some 10m off the western boundary. It would have a blank wall at first floor level facing westwards and would not cause any harm to the properties to the west. The applicant's drawings show a landscape buffer on the western boundary between the red line of the site plan (which denotes the site of the planning application) and the blue line (which denotes the land that is within the ownership/control of the applicants). The applicants have confirmed that a private management company will be responsible for the future maintenance of this buffer strip. This area contains a number of trees and other plants that will further protect the amenities of the occupiers of the properties to the west and preserve the setting of the site. This buffer strip also extends to the south and west of the site." There are no grounds to depart from this assessment now and the scheme complies with policy B3 of the MSLP. 79

80 Highways and car parking The access to the site and the level of car parking were both considered to be acceptable in It is not considered that there have been any material changes that would justify a departure from this view now. In relation to car parking, the scheme provides for 2 marked car parking spaces per unit. In reality on plots 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, it would be possible to park an additional car in front of the marked spaces. There would be 7 spaces for the library. The District Councils maximum car standards for 2 and 3 bedroom units are 2 spaces per unit and for 4 bedroom houses it is 3 spaces per unit. On plots 3, 4, 11 and 12, which have open fronted car barns rather than garages, it will encourage people to use the structure for car parking rather than general storage. Given the above, in comparison with the marked spaces on the plans, which show a total of 28 car parking spaces, there is a shortfall of 6 spaces from the Councils maximum standard (the four bedroom houses are 1 space short of the maximum standard). As in 2012 it is not considered that this shortfall would cause a highway safety hazard that would justify withholding planning permission. Trees Within the site there is one woodland tree preservation order (TPO), 27 individual trees and 6 groups. The applicants have provided a detailed tree survey that is available on file for inspection. The proposal will result in the loss of 1 tree classed as category B, 17 trees within category C and 3 trees within category U. British Standard 5837 (2012) "Trees in Relation to Construction" classes category U trees as those which are in such a condition that they cannot be realistically retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for more than ten years; Category B trees have moderate quality and value: category C trees have low quality and value. The arboricultural report submitted with the application concludes that the existing trees shown for retention can be adequately protected during the course of construction. This report contains a detailed method statement as to how construction works should be carried out within the site. The majority of the trees within the site would not be adversely affected by the proposal and that it is only the poorer quality specimens that would be removed. The preserved belt of trees to the south, east and west of the site that provide important screening would remain in place. It is considered that overall the proposed layout has been well designed in order to be built around and not adversely affect the important trees within the site. As such the proposal still complies with policy B7 of the MSLP. Ecology The application is accompanied by an Extended Ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report, a Breeding Birds Survey, Reptile Survey and Bat Activity Survey. These are available on file for inspection. In summary no reptiles, evidence of roosting bats or significant breeding birds were found during the surveys. The Ecology Partnership revisited the site on 9th October 2015, to assess the site and that nothing had 80

81 changed significantly from the initial survey carried out by Lizard Landscape Design in 2012, with the exception of the pond that used to be site but which is no longer present. Again, no suitable habitats for reptiles or other protected species were recorded and the buildings and trees were still considered to have low or negligible potential to support bats. No evidence of badgers was identified. The Councils Ecological Consultant has reviewed both the initial information that was submitted with the application and the additional information that was provided following his request for an update. He has no objections to the development subject to works being carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Breeding Bird Surveys, Reptile Surveys and Bat Activity Surveys report by PJC Ecology, dated July This can be secured by a planning condition, thereby complying with policy C5 of the Mid Sussex local Plan and policy DP37 of the District Plan. Drainage The means of drainage of the site can be secured by a planning condition. There were no objections to the previous scheme relating to the drainage of the site and there are no grounds to come to a different conclusion on this matter now. As such the scheme complies with policy CS13 in the MSLP and policy DP41 of the District Plan. Community Facilities Policy CS6 in the MSLP states: Proposals for the change of use or redevelopment of health, social service, library or other community facilities will only be permitted where the community use is relocating, or improved facilities are to be provided in the locality In this case CCHF have stated that it is their intention to relocate from this site and they hope to find another suitable site in Sussex. It was accepted in 2010 that the principle of relocating from this site was acceptable on the basis that whilst the activities being carried out on the site are clearly benefiting the wider community, in this case, disadvantaged children from London, given the current use of the site it would have been very difficult to argue that this use is providing a significant benefit to children from Mid Sussex. As such it was your officer's view that the weight that should be afforded this policy in this case must be limited. The charity could move its operations from this site at any time and the use that it provides would cease. Given all of the above it was not felt that policy CS6 should prevent this application from being recommended for approval. The current position is that the applicant, CCHF All About Kids has not found new and suitable premises to relocate to and therefore more time is required and hence the application has been resubmitted. The scheme would not affect the library and there would be no conflict with policy CS6 on this point. It will be important to manage the construction site appropriately so that access to the library is maintained during the course of construction, should planning permission be granted for this development. 81

82 It is considered that the proposal still complies with policy CS6 of the MSLP. Sustainable Design Policy B4 in the MSLP relates to sustainable design. The policy only requires applicants to have regard to the issue of sustainable design as part of their planning application. The applicants have advised that all boilers and appliances will be energy efficient, dual flush toilets and flow restrictor taps will be used, the units will all have cycle spaces provided as well as composting facilities. SUDS will be used where possible and water butts will be provided. It is therefore considered that the applicants have complied with policy B4 of the MSLP. Infrastructure The Council has an adopted SPD, relating to the provision of infrastructure to serve new developments. This links back to policy G3 in the MSLP. This allows the Local Planning Authority to require developers to provide infrastructure contributions to go towards the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure for their proposals. Such contributions can be secured through a planning obligation. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 came into force in April The CIL Regulations are law and therefore any request for infrastructure contributions must meet the tests of the CIL Regulations, otherwise any planning permission predicated on a planning obligation that did not meet the tests of the CIL Regulations would be unlawful and open to challenge in the Courts. Paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations state: "A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:" (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development." The following contributions have been requested (comments from the County Planning Officer are awaited). Children's playing space 17,333 (Play 13,506 and Kick about 3,827) Community buildings 2,880 Local community infrastructure 3,750 Formal sport 16,266 It is considered that all of the above contributions would meet the tests of the CIL Regulations. The applicants are in the process of completing a legal agreement with the Council to secure these payments. Other matters The Parish Council have queried the red line of the application site. This is the same as the previously approved planning application at the site. The line excludes all boundary screening, the principals' house, County library and land to the north, built out for residential development as these areas are not developable. The site area 82

83 therefore falls below the affordable housing threshold of 0.5Ha within the MSLP (Policy H4). Policy DP29 of the pre submission stage District Plan has little weight in the determination of this application. There are no grounds to resist the application based on the way the red line has been drawn around the site or to require affordable housing on this site. Planning permission was granted under reference DM/15/1117 for the demolition of the Beacon centre and its replacement with four dwellings. It is considered that there would be a benefit from having a pedestrian link from the site of this application to the site of the former Beacon Centre. This would allow pedestrians a more direct route to the eastern side of Hassocks from the site and vice versa. As the site of the former Beacon centre is within the blue line on the applicants location plan this denotes that the applicant has ownership or control of the adjoin site. As such it is considered reasonable to request that such a link is provided. It is not felt that this should be the subject of a planning condition because the scheme would still be acceptable without such a link being provided. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitutes the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The economic role The proposed development would result in the creation of construction jobs during the build period. The additional population could help generate more local spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services, and generate New Homes Bonus funding as well as additional Council Tax receipts. These are all material considerations that weigh in favour of the development. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the economic role of sustainable development. Social role The provision of 14 new dwellings will make a useful contribution to the district's housing supply and would help meet the identified need for housing. The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being." Due to the location of the site within the built-up area of Hassocks where there are a number of services, it is considered that the location of the site is sustainable. Overall it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the social role of sustainable development. 83

84 Environmental role As set out above, the site is not within a countryside area, nor on land within any national designations, such as AONB or National Park. The proposed development in terms of layout, scale and appearance is considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and hence would not result in an adverse impact to the character of the built environment. As such, the environmental role of sustainable development would be satisfied by this proposal. Planning Balance and Conclusion As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. To summarise, this proposal was considered to be acceptable in It is not felt that there have been any material changes that would justify a different decision being made on the proposal now to that previously made by the Council. The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also emphasises that a key Government priority is the delivery of new housing. This scheme would deliver new housing within the District, which is a positive benefit, particularly at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as it is required to do. It is therefore considered that the application complies with the NPPF and polices G3, B1, B3, B7, H3, T4, T5, CS6, and CS13 in the MSLP and policies DP18, DP19, DP23, DP24, DP37 and DP41 in the emerging District Plan and can be supported. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act No development shall take place until details of proposed screen walls/fences have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls/fences associated with them have been erected. Reason: In order to protect the appearance of the area and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 84

85 3. The development shall be implemented using the materials and finishes for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings that have been specified on the Materials schedule from ECE Architecture dated April 2015 submitted with the application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 4. The development shall be implemented using the materials and finishes for the surface of the access roads and parking areas that have been specified on the Materials schedule from ECE Architecture dated April 2015 submitted with the application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the surface is consistent with the appearance of the area and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 5. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 6. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 7. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed surface water drainage and means of disposal have been 85

86 submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained and to accord with policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP41 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 8. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Public Holidays or at any other time except between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B23 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 9. No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site. Reason: To ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth and mud on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance or hazard on the road system in the locality and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 10. No construction/building work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority provision for the temporary parking of vehicles and the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the building or other operations on the site throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 11. No work shall be carried out on site unless provision is available within the site (or other adjacent land within the applicants control) in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority, for all temporary contractors buildings, plant and stacks of materials associated with the development and such provision shall be retained for these purposes throughout the period of work on the site. 86

87 Reason: To avoid undue congestion of the site and consequent obstruction to access and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 12. The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for the parking of bicycles clear of the public highway and such space shall not thereafter be used other than for the purposes for which it is provided. Reason: To enable adequate provision for a facility which is likely to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic on existing roads and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 13. The building(s) shall not be occupied until the parking spaces/turning facilities/and garages shown on the submitted plans have been provided and constructed. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking/turning/and garaging of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles clear of the highways and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 14. Development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Breeding Bird Surveys, Reptile Surveys and Bat Activity Surveys report by PJC Ecology, dated July Reason: In the interests of biodiversity conservation in accordance with 118 of the NPPF and to accord with policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP37 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 15. No development shall take place until a method of construction statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should pay particular attention to preventing disruption to users of the library during the course of construction works. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the users of the library during the course of development. 16. No dwelling shall be occupied until the car parking spaces shown on drawing Rev H to be used by the library have been provided and are available for use. Reason: To ensure sufficient car parking is available to serve the library in accordance with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 87

88 17. The access from the site to the public highway shall be designed, laid out and constructed with kerb radii/visibility splays/and sight lines in all respects in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any other operation or use authorised by this permission is commenced. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with approved policy and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 18. The buildings shall not be occupied until the road(s) serving the development hereby permitted has been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure satisfactory standards of access for the proposed development and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 19. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the foul drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained and to accord with Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP41 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. INFORMATIVES 1. In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the proposed adoptable on-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader ( ) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that any works commenced prior to the S38 agreement being in place are undertaken at their own risk. 88

89 3. The applicant is advised to contact the Community Highways Officer covering the respective area ( ) to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway. 4. You are requested to consider implementing a pedestrian access oink from the site to the adjoining site to the east. 5. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and developers advice can be found at or by phone on Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Location Plan 002 A Site Plan 001 H Existing and Proposed Roof Plan 006 A Proposed Floor Plans 003 A Proposed Floor Plans 004 A Existing Floor and Elevations Plan 005 A Existing Floor Plans Existing Floor Plans Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 11 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 12 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 13 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 14 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 15 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 16 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 17 B Survey FIGURE NO Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 18 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 10 B Street Scene 020 B Tree Survey TF892/TS/ Topographical Survey TF892/TPP/

90 APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS Highway Authority Keymer Road (B2116) forms part of an east-west distributor link between the A23 to the east and the A275 to the west. There is a system of street lighting and footway links on the north and south sides of the road. Hassocks has the benefit of a train station with regular services to London and Brighton. Proposal The proposal is for the conversion of Stafford house into 4 apartments including the demolition of ancillary buildings and the erection of 6 detached and semi-detached 2 storey dwellings. A total of 28 car parking spaces are proposed and the brick pier and gate on the west side of the existing vehicular access is to be removed. Access The bellmouth access is to remain as existing and currently serves Stafford House and the County Library. No changes are proposed to the vehicular access. However the removal of the gate and piers will widen the access to allow for safe pedestrian entry. The existing footway along Keymer Road to the west of the access is to be extending into the site. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m are shown on the Site Layout plan which are acceptable given the location. The access will need to be a minimum of 4.5m in width, as there are no dimensions on the plan can the applicant confirm this is the case. There is an existing access gate from the site access road to the Community Centre, it would be of benefit if this gate were to remain to provide pedestrian access for residents and library users to the community centre. Internal Layout It is proposed for the internal layout to be a paved shared surface for the entirety of the access road excluding the 5 parking/shared driveways which will be of a bonded gravel finish. The intention is for the internal layout to remain private. According to our records the highway boundary is located at a point approximately 2m back from the edge of carriageway lining up with the back of the footway. Given the footway will continue into the site and blacktop will continue into the site for some distance the location of the highway boundary may require consideration. In addition it is stated that granite setts are proposed to draw the drivers attention to the shared surface area, however granite setts are used to define the highway boundary which will lead to confusion in the future. Tracking plots have been provided which show there is sufficient room for a large refuse vehicle to turn within the site. It is also stated that there is sufficient room for Fire Appliances to manoeuvre within the site. 90

91 Road Safety Audit Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) was dated April 2010 which exceeds the time limit we require. However, if a Designers Response can be provided to ensure all issues are addressed and updated RSA is not required. Item A1.2 Problem: Limited library car parking provision (3 spaces). This could result in vehicles parking in the access road. The plans now show 7 car parking spaces for library use which exceeds the existing provision. One of these spaces will need to be reserved for disabled drivers. Item A4.1 Problem: Inadequate dropped crossing facilities at the access bellmouth. This could result in wheelchair users experiencing difficulty when crossing bellmouth or entering site. The Site Layout Plan Drawing No 001 includes a note which states 'Existing drop kerb crossing to be upgraded with tactile paving subject to discussions with WSCC'. Item A4.2 Problem: Risk of inadequate pedestrian access facilities at the west site of the site access. The Site Layout Plan Drawing No 001 includes a note which states 'Existing brick piers and gate to be removed to facilitate improved pedestrian access'. It appears that the footpath is to be continued further into the site. However there is no reference to the management of the Laurel trees around the access nor any reference note in relation to the continuation of the footpath. The footpath within the site appears to terminate at a point just before the 'y' junction. A visibility splay should be provided to show a pedestrian entering the shared surface area can be seen by drivers entering the site. Item A5.1 Problem: Risk of inadequate lighting of the footway area to the west of the access. The existing Laurel Hedge will need to be cut back. Improvements to the existing streetlighting should be considered. In the event only the tactile paving is to be replaced then the works on the highway can be undertaken by the applicant obtaining a minor works licence. The pier and gates are not on the public highway. Access No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the pedestrian access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety Service Vehicle Turning space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the service vehicle turning space has been constructed within the site in accordance with the approved site plan. This space shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: In the interests of road safety Construction plant and materials No development shall be commenced until such time as plans and details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the site set up during construction. This shall include details for all temporary contractors' 91

92 buildings, plant and stacks of materials, provision for the temporary parking of contractors vehicles and the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the implementation of this development. Such provision once approved and implemented shall be retained throughout the period of construction. Reason: To avoid undue congestion of the site and consequent obstruction to access. Wheel Washing No development shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details provided by the Local Planning Authority and such facility shall be retained in working order and throughout the period of work on site to ensure the vehicles do not carry mud and earth on to the public highway, which may cause a hazard to other road users. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Safety Audit Recommendations No development shall commence until such time as revised plans and details incorporating the recommendations given in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and accepted in the Designers Response have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Section 38 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Provision of Adoptable Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the proposed adoptable on-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader ( ) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that any works commenced prior to the S38 agreement being in place are undertaken at their own risk. Minor Highway Works The applicant is advised to contact the Community Highways Officer covering the respective area ( ) to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway. Private Roads The applicant is advised that as the estate roads are to remain private/unadopted, the Highway Authority would require provisions in any s106 agreement to confirm that the estate roads would not be offered for adoption at a later date and wording included to ensure that the carriageways, footways and casual parking are properly constructed, surfaced and drained, and that the works are appropriately certified from a suitably qualified professional confirming the construction standard. Car parking space (details approved) No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use 92

93 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT West Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), has been consulted on the above proposed development in respect of surface water drainage. The following is the detailed comments of the LLFA relating to surface water drainage and flood risk for the proposed development and any associated observations, advice and conditions. Flood Risk Summary Modelled surface water flood risk - Low risk. Comments: Current ufmfsw mapping shows that part of the proposed site, is at 'Low' risk from surface water flooding. This risk is based on modelled data only and should not be taken as meaning that the site will/will not definitely flood in these events. However the surface water management strategy should consider this risk and any suitable mitigation measures if appropriate. Any existing surface water flow paths across the site should be maintained or appropriate mitigation strategies proposed. Modelled ground water flood risk susceptibility - Low risk Comments: The area of the proposed development is shown to be at 'Low risk' from ground water flooding based on the current mapping. This means the general geology in the area may not be suitable for infiltration / soakaways. Where the intention is to dispose of surface water via infiltration/soakaway, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under the methodology set out in BRE Digest 365 or equivalent. Ground water contamination and Source Protection Zones. The potential for ground water contamination within a source protection zone has not been considered by the LLFA. The LPA should consult with the EA if this is considered as risk. Records of any historic local flooding? - No Comments: We do not have any records of historic flooding within the confines of the proposed site or nearby. This should not be taken that this site has never suffered from flooding, only that it has never been reported to the LLFA. 93

94 Ordinary watercourses nearby? - No Comments: Current Ordnance Survey mapping does not show any ordinary watercourses within or in close vicinity to the proposed development area. No development should take place within 5m of any ordinary watercourse. If works are undertaken within, under, over or up to an Ordinary Watercourse, even if this is temporary, an Ordinary Watercourse Consent (OWC) may need to be applied for from the District or Borough Council. Local or field boundary ditches, not shown on Ordnance Survey mapping, may exists around the site. If present these should be maintained and highlighted on future plans. Is development within Flood Zone 2 or 3? - No Comments: Environment Agency mapping shows that this site is not within Flood Zone 2 or 3. Future development - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) The proposed surface water drainage approach is permeable paving and soakaways. As no detailed designs have been submitted, if approved at outline stage, the proposal should be subject to the following condition: Development should not commence until finalised detailed surface water drainage designs for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of hydrological and hydro geological context of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage designs should demonstrate that the surface water runoff generated up to and including the 100 year, plus 30% for climate change, critical storm will not exceed the greenfield run-off from the current site following the corresponding rainfall event. If the intention is to dispose any surface water via infiltration (e.g. soakaways or porous surfaces), this should be shown to be suitable through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) before any conditions are discharged. Development shall not commence until full details of the maintenance and management of the SUDs system is set out in a site-specific maintenance manual and submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Please note that Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has not yet been implemented and WSCC does not currently expect to act as the SuDS Approval Body (SAB) in this matter. 94

95 Ecological Consultant Further to review of the letter from The Ecology Partnership (formerly PJC Ecology), dated 14 October 2015, confirming that there is no longer a pond on the site but that there are no other significant changes since their last report, then, subject to the following condition, no significant impacts on biodiversity are anticipated. Development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Breeding Bird Surveys, Reptile Surveys and Bat Activity Surveys report by PJC Ecology, dated July Reason: in the interests of biodiversity conservation in accordance with 118 of the NPPF. Community Leisure Officer The following leisure contributions are required to enhance capacity and provision due to increased demand for facilities in accordance with the Local Plan policy and SPD which require contributions for developments of over 5 units. CHILDRENS PLAYING SPACE Adastra Park, managed by the Parish Council, is the nearest locally equipped play area approximately 340m from the development site. This facility will face increased demand from the new development and a contribution of 17,333 is required to make improvements to play equipment ( 13,506) and kickabout provision ( 3,827). These facilities are within the distance thresholds for children's play outlined in the Development and Infrastructure SPD FORMAL SPORT In the case of this development, a financial contribution of 16,266 is required toward pitch drainage at London Road Recreation Ground in Hassocks. 95

96 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS The provision of community facilities is an essential part of the infrastructure required to service new developments to ensure that sustainable communities are created. In the case of this development, a financial contribution of 7,066 is required to make improvements to Adastra Hall in Hassocks, as detailed in the Council's draft Infrastructure Development Plan. In terms of the scale of contribution required, these figures are calculated on a per head formulae based upon the number of units proposed and average occupancy (as laid out in the Council's Development and Infrastructure SPD) and therefore is commensurate in scale to the development. The Council maintains that the contributions sought as set out are in full accordance with the requirements set out in Circular 05/2005 and in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations Environmental Protection Environmental Protection has no objection to this application subject to: Conditions: - Construction hours: Works of construction or demolition, including the use of plant and machinery, necessary for implementation of this consent shall be limited to the following times: Monday - Friday 08:00-18:00 Hours Saturday 09:00-13:00 Hours Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays no work permitted Reason: to protect the amenity of local residents. Informative: Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: - Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. - No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on

97 Sussex Police Thank you for your letter of 17th August 2015, advising me of an application for residential development at the above location, for which you seek comment from a crime prevention viewpoint. The National Planning Policy Framework demonstrates the government's commitment to creating safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion, and with the level of crime and anti social behaviour in Mid Sussex district being below average when compared with the rest of Sussex, I have no major concerns with the proposals, however, additional measures to mitigate against any identified local crime trends may be required. The proposed road layout, being a single access with no through route, leading to a series of small cul de sacs will promote a sense of ownership and community and will deter trespass. The orientation of the dwellings will allow overlooking and natural surveillance of the road and footpath network, together with other communal areas. Car parking is provided in garages, car ports and open areas adjacent to the corresponding dwellings. I am pleased to note that the applicants have considered appropriate crime prevention measures in the proposals using the principles of Secured by Design and the seven attributes of safe, sustainable places, and I am satisfied that these measures will create a safe and secure environment for future residents. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment. The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 heightens the importance of taking crime prevention into account when planning decisions are made. Section 17 of the Act places a clear duty on both police and local authorities to exercise their various functions with due regard to the likely effect on the prevention of crime and disorder. You are asked to accord due weight to the advice offered in this letter which would demonstrate your authority's commitment to work in partnership and comply with the spirit of The Crime & Disorder Act. 97

98 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 5 NOV 2015 PART II RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL NONE 98

99 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 5 NOV 2015 PART III OTHER MATTERS Ansty and Staplefield 4. DM/15/1161 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey LAND ADJACENT TO BARN COTTAGE, CUCKFIELD ROAD, ANSTY, WEST SUSSEX CREATION OF NEW ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 8 DETACHED HOUSES MR C LEE GRID REF: EAST NORTH

100 POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Classified Roads/ Planning Agreement / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / ODPM CODE: CASE OFFICER: Minor Dwellings Mr Steven King Executive Summary This report relates to a full planning application (reference DM/15/1161) that sought permission for the erection of eight 4 bedroom houses on land to the south of Barn Cottage, Cuckfield Road, Ansty. The application is now the subject of an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. The appeal is being dealt with by the written representations procedure and the Council will need to submit its statement of case to the Planning Inspectorate by 12 November The purpose of this report is to inform that Planning Inspectorate what the Councils decision on this application would have been if the application was still with the Council to determine. The decision on whether to grant or refuse planning permission on this scheme will now be made by the Planning Inspectorate. Recommendation It is recommended that if the decision on this planning application was still with the Local Planning Authority that the scheme would have been refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed layout and design of the dwellings is not satisfactory and does not result in a high quality development. The houses on plots 1, 2 and 3 do not address the main road to the east. This will result in a poor quality development that does not comply with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the District Plan. The scheme does not fulfil the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework as the scheme will not contribute to protecting or providing a positive improvement to the built environment. 2. In the absence of a completed S106 Agreement the proposal fails to meet Policy G3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP18 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft in respect of the infrastructure requirement to serve the development. 3. In the absence of a speed survey it has not been demonstrated that the proposed access and in particular, the proposed visibility splays are adequate to serve the development. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local plan and Policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. 100

101 Members are requested to accept this recommendation so that your officer can write a statement of case to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate. Summary of Representations 5 Letters of objection -site lies in countryside and is contrary to policy C1 of the Local Plan -doesn t provide any affordable housing -not a sustainable development as there are limited facilities in Ansty -access is unsatisfactory -houses not in keeping -cul-de-sac arrangement not in keeping with ribbon development of village -Ansty has plenty of large properties -concerned about footpath leading westwards and further development -concerned my cottage will flood if this field is built on Summary of Consultations (Full comments in appendix) County Planning Officer No comments received Highway Authority Require a speed survey to be undertaken and a plan to show that larger vehicles can turn within the site Southern Water Request a drainage condition be attached to any approval. Urban Designer This is a back-to-front arrangement that does not properly address the main road frontage including the ancient oak tree. I also have concerns about the potential overshadowing of the trees over the gardens at the rear of the site. In addition, the architecture lacks individual character and integrity; it is undermined by inconsistent application of facing materials and UPVC windows. The scheme consequently generates little sense of place. For these reasons I object to it. Environmental Health Officer No objection subject to condition 101

102 Drainage Officer No objection subject to condition Trees and Landscapes Officer Need to retain trees Not concerned about removal of trees and tree 19 Community Leisure Officer Requests the following infrastructure contributions CHILDRENS PLAYING SPACE 11,304 FORMAL SPORT 10,608 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS 4,608 Ansty Parish Council The committee object to this development because it is in an area of countryside development restraint and does not offer a mix of housing. Introduction This application sought full planning permission for the erection of eight 4 bedroom houses on land to the south of Barn Cottage, Cuckfield Road, Ansty. Relevant Planning History None. Site and Surroundings The site of the planning application is an unused parcel of land located to the south of Barn Cottage, on the west side of Cuckfield Road in Ansty. The site is at a slightly higher level than the road. There is a fall in levels through the site from north to south. There is an existing field gate access in the north eastern corner of the site. To the north there is a cottage with an extension at the rear (southern) side of the house. To the south there is a post and wire fence on the boundary. There are some trees on the southern side of the boundary fence. Beyond this is a cottage at a lower level. There is an access drive and an outbuilding for this cottage close to the southern boundary of the site. Further to the north is The Ancient Farm which is a grade 2 listed building. The site is not within the setting of this listed building. To the west there are a number of trees on the boundary and then a grassed field beyond. There are a number of trees on the eastern boundary of the site and there is a hedge screen along this boundary. On the opposite side of the road to the east there are a variety of semidetached houses. 102

103 The site lies within the countryside area of development restraint as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). The built up area boundary of the village is to the immediate north of the site and the houses on the opposite side of the road to the east are also within the built up area of Ansty. The site is within the proposed built up area boundary of the draft Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan. Application Details The application sought planning permission for the erection of eight 4 bedroom detached houses. The vehicular access to the site would be positioned on the north eastern boundary of the site in-between two of the boundary trees. The plans show two detached houses facing this access road with their rear elevations facing east towards Cuckfield Road. The plans show two detached houses to the rear (west) of these houses. The remaining four houses would be positioned in a line along the southern portion of the site. The house on plot 1 would have its front elevation facing northwards. Vehicular access to this house would be from the west with an integral single garage with a dormer window above the garage. The house on plot 2 would be similar with its vehicular access from the west. The proposed elevations of both houses would be brick and tile hung with a plain tile roof. The plans show two detached houses in the north western corner of the site on plots 7 and 8. These would have their vehicular access from the east and their front elevations would face towards those houses on plots 1 and 2. These houses would be mirror images of one another and would feature an integral single garage. The proposed elevations of both houses would be brick and tile hung with a plain tile roof. The house on plot 6 in the south western corner of the site would be a larger property with an integral double garage. The proposed elevations of both houses would be brick and tile hung with a plain tile roof. The houses on plots 3 to 5 would have a single integral garage. The layout of the site shows that these houses would be arranged in a line along the southern end of the site. These houses would feature integral single garages. The proposed elevations of these houses would be brick and tile hung with a plain tile roof. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan G3 Infrastructure C1 Development in the countryside B1 Design B3 Neighbour amenity B4 Energy efficiency B7 Trees 103

104 T4 Highways CS13 Drainage Neighbourhood Plan Material planning consideration but little weight AS1 Built up area boundary AS4 Housing Mix AS5 Land at Barn Cottage, Ansty Draft District Plan The Pre Submission District Plan was published on the 12th June The Plan is a material planning consideration but little weight can be given to the Plan at this stage. DP1 - Sustainable Development DP10 - Protection of the Countryside DP18 Securing Infrastructure DP19 - Transport DP24 - Character and Design DP36 - Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows DP41 - Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment (Consideration of key Issues) The main issues for consideration are: The principle of development; The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area; The standard of accommodation; The impact on neighboring amenity; Highways matters; Drainage; Sustainability; Impact on trees; Whether the proposal would be sustainable development; and Planning Balance and Conclusions Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 104

105 Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The NPPF, which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Para 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of policy C1 in the MSLP cannot be considered up to date. In those circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and 105

106 where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted The second bullet point of the decision taking section currently applies. Thus as policy C1 cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49) the Council should be granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF. In order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. Assessment of main issues The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area Policy B1 in the MSLP seeks a high standard of design in new development. A similar aim is carried forward in policy DP24 of the District Plan. This reflects the aims of the NPPF which states that good design is indivisible from good planning. The site is bounded by development on three sides. It is therefore considered that there will not be an adverse impact on the character of the area from a residential development on the site. It is considered that the layout of this scheme is not satisfactory. The scheme has been designed so that plots 1 and 2 do not face onto the main road but instead have their rear gardens facing onto the main road. It is not considered that this is a good layout with the houses turning their backs on the street scene. A similar problem arises for the house proposed on plot 3. The result of this layout is a scheme that does not address the public realm satisfactorily. It is therefore considered that there is a conflict with policy B1 of the MSLP and DP24 of the District Plan. It is not felt the scheme complies with the aims of the NPPF which states that planning should contribute to protecting, enhancing and seeking positive improvements to the built environment. Housing mix Policy H2 in the MSLP states New housing developments shall include a mix of dwelling types, sizes and affordability and shall ensure that efficient use is made of land. Proposals should: 106

107 (a) take account of the local housing needs and site characteristics; (b) be provided at an average net density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, where appropriate; (c) include a significant proportion of affordable housing (as required by Policy H4); (d) include a significant proportion of smaller dwellings; and (e) meet the requirements of design policies B1 and B2. Proposals which, by virtue of design, layout or size, are likely to give rise to unsatisfactory living conditions such as overcrowding or lack of privacy, will be refused. Where appropriate, in order to safeguard the amenity of adjacent dwellings, the Local Planning Authority will apply planning conditions which restrict rights of extension under the General Permitted Development Order. It is considered that as this policy refers to a requirement for a significant proportion of affordable homes being provided (criteria c) that it can reasonably be argued that the policy is geared towards larger sites where more than 15 dwellings are to be provided. Policy AS4 in the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan (NP) states Residential developments must provide a mix of dwelling sizes (market and affordable) that reflect the best available housing evidence. In the early part of the plan period, the housing evidence requires a particular emphasis on the provision of 1- and 2-bed dwellings. It is therefore expected that in the early part of the plan period the majority of new dwellings on individual developments shall be a balanced mix of 1- and 2-bed dwellings. Policy AS5 in the Ansty and Staplefield NP states Planning permission will be granted for residential development on 0.56 hectares of land at Barn Cottage, Ansty, subject to the following criteria: the provision of a range of house types and in accordance with Policy AS4 of this Plan; and the tree belt on the eastern boundary of the site is largely retained and appropriate boundary treatment and landscaping consisting of native species provides screening of the development from the B2036 road. It is clear that there is a conflict with these polices as the proposal is for eight 4 bedroom dwellings. At the present time the Ansty and Staplefield NP is a material planning consideration however it can be afforded little weight in the decision making process for the following reasons. The plan has just completed step 3 (Regulation 14 Pre-submission publicity & consultation) of the 7 stage process to it becoming a made plan. As such changes could still be made to the plan as it progresses. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: -the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); -the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies 107

108 (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and -the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Therefore owing to the relatively early stage of the NP little weight can be afforded to the NP as a whole at this point in time. The Planning Practice Guidance Note (PPG) provides the Governments guidance on the operation of the planning system. It provides the following guidance on when it might be permissible to refuse a planning application on the grounds of prematurity. Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework explains how weight may be given to policies in emerging plans. However in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process. Whilst the proposal may have a significant impact on the currently proposed housing allocations in the NP, it is not felt that it could be reasonably argued that the emerging NP is at an advanced stage. Under such circumstances it would be very difficult to justify a refusal of planning permission based on grounds of prematurity. In respect of the reasoning for the above NP policy, the NP states that Ansty and Staplefield has a very high proportion of detached properties and in contrast the proportion of smaller properties is very low. Overall the NP concludes that there is a need for a greater number of smaller dwellings at an affordable price is required for first-time buyers and older residents wishing to downsize in Ansty and Staplefield. In relation to this it is worth noting that since the Ansty and Staplefield Housing Needs Survey was undertaken in 2012, planning permission has been granted and implemented at the former Ansty Cross public house for the replacement of the public house with 4 no. 1 bedroom flats and 2 no. two storeys plus roof storey 3 108

109 bedroom terraced houses with associated car parking and landscaping. As such some smaller residential units have been provided within Ansty recently. Policy DP28 in the District Plan states To support sustainable communities, housing development will: provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes from new development (including affordable housing) that reflects current and future local housing needs; meet the current and future needs of different groups in the community including older people, and vulnerable groups. This could include the provision of bungalows and other forms of suitable accommodation; and on strategic sites (i.e. those exceeding 10 hectares), provide permanent pitches for Gypsies and Travellers where a need for such accommodation is identified. Evidence of housing need will be based on the best available evidence (including local evidence provided to support Neighbourhood Plans). There is no threshold at which this policy would apply. At the present time little weight can be afforded to the District Plan due to its early stage of preparation. As such it would be difficult to resist the application based on the proposed lack of housing mix conflicting with policy DP28 of the District Plan. Taking all of the above into account it is considered that position in relation to the mix of housing in the proposal is as follows. The proposal conflicts with policies AS4 and AS5 of the NP and policy DP28 of the District Plan. At the present time little weight can be afforded to either of these emerging documents. It is not considered that policy H2 in the MSLP is applicable to this site as it is too small. The policy conflicts with the emerging plans identified above weigh against the proposal. However balanced against this is the clear need for additional housing and the fact that the District Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as it is required to do. Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the balance of advantage in this case lies with accepting the lack of housing mix on the site, notwithstanding the conflict with the emerging development plan policies. As such it is not considered that this issue would have formed a reason for refusal of the scheme. The standard of accommodation Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of future occupants of new dwellings. Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for 109

110 storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents, as follows: Table 1 - Minimum gross internal floor areas and storage (m2) Number of bedrooms (b) Number of bed spaces (persons) 1 storey dwellings 2 storey dwellings 3 storey dwellings 1b 1p 39 (37)2 N/A N/A 1.0 2p N/A 1.5 2b 3p N/A 2.0 4p N/A 2.0 3b 4p p p b 5p p p p b 6p p p b 7p p Built-in storage The development has been designed in accordance with these standards. On this basis, it is considered that the above policies and guidance would be met by this proposal. The impact on neighbouring amenity Policy B3 of the Local Plan states that proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook. Policy DP24 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings, including taking account of the impact on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. 110

111 The front elevation of the house on plot 8 would be some 24m away from Barn Cottage at its closest point. Whilst there would be oblique views from the front elevation of this house towards Barn Cottage and its rear garden, it is not considered that this would cause significant harm. The front elevation of the house on plot 1 would be 16m off the mutual boundary to the north. It is not considered that this relationship causes significant harm to Barn Cottage. The house proposed for plot 3 would be 26m away from 2 North Cottages to the south. Whilst the rear elevations of the proposed houses on plots 3 and 4 would face towards 2 North Cottages, is it considered that at this distance they would not cause a significant loss of amenity to this property. There will be no adverse impact on the amenities of the houses on the east side of Cuckfield Road that face the site. Overall, there would be no conflict with these policies. Highways matters The plans propose that there would be a new vehicular access to the site towards the north eastern side of the site. The plans show that a visibility splay of 2.4m by 70m would be provided. The Highway Authority requested the applicants to undertake a speed survey to justify the length of the proposed visibility splays. This has not been done by the applicants. Without this work being done the Highway Authority do not consider that they can state that the proposed visibility splays are sufficient. Drainage The applicants have stated the foul sewerage would go to mains sewer and surface water would go to soakaways. It is not considered that there are any overriding reasons why the site cannot be satisfactorily drained. The detail of the means of drainage can be controlled by a planning condition, thereby complying with policy CS13 of the MSLP and policy DP41 of the District Plan. Sustainability The applicants have stated that rainwater harvesting will be a feature of the site and roof areas would accommodate PV panels. White goods would be A+. It is considered the applicants have had regard to policy B4 of the MSLP. Trees There are a number of trees on the eastern, western and southern boundaries of the site. On the eastern boundary of the site a Lime, Silver Birch, Oak and Ash are protected by a tree preservation order (TPO) and are to be retained and protected. The plans show that one preserved tree (Silver Birch) is to be removed to form the access into the site together with a section of hedging. It is intended that the Silver Birch will be replaced with 5 large specimen sized Silver Birch. 111

112 The application is accompanied by an arboricultural report that is available on file for inspection. This states that the proposed development has been designed so that the footprints of the proposed buildings are all situated outside of the root protection areas for the trees which are to be retained both at and adjacent to the site. The indicative landscape proposal show some 34 individual heavy standard (12/14cm girth) trees, some 5 larger specimen trees in key site locations and mixed native species hedgerows adjacent site boundaries which will be comprised of; Hawthorn, Holly, Blackthorn, Field Maple, Wayfairing Tree, Spindle, Dog Rose, Dogwood, Guelder Rose, Hazel and Sweet Briar Rose. Overall the applicants report concludes that -Trees should not present a planning constraint to the development of this site. -The proposed tree planting will mitigate and/or adequately compensate for the proposed tree removals at the site, including the single protected Silver Birch tree. -It is considered possible to retain and protect trees identified as being in good condition and significant within the landscape both at and adjacent to the site, providing the recommendations and methods noted within this report are adhered to. The Councils Tree Officer has commented on the planning application. He was of the view that it was necessary to retain trees 15 to 18 (3 oaks and an Ash) in the north western corner of the site. He had no objection to the removal of trees 13 and 14 (Sycamore and Hawthorn) adjacent to plot 6 Overall it is considered that the impact on trees within the site would have been acceptable and therefore the proposal complies with policy B7 of the MSLP. Infrastructure The Council has an adopted SPD, relating to the provision of infrastructure to serve new developments. This links back to policy G3 in the MSLP. This allows the Local Planning Authority to require developers to provide infrastructure contributions to go towards the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure for their proposals. Such contributions can be secured through a planning obligation. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 came into force in April The CIL Regulations are law and therefore any request for infrastructure contributions must meet the tests of the CIL Regulations, otherwise any planning permission predicated on a planning obligation that did not meet the tests of the CIL Regulations would be unlawful and open to challenge in the Courts. Paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations state: "A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:" (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development." The following contributions have been requested. 11,304 for childrens playing space 112

113 10,608 for formal sport 4,608for community buildings 6,000 for local community infrastructure It is considered that the above contributions do meet the tests as set out in the CIL Regulations and these can be secured by a s106 Planning Obligation. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitutes the government s view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The economic role The proposed development would result in the creation of construction jobs during the build period. The additional, albeit limited, population could help generate more local spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services, and generate New Homes Bonus funding as well as additional Council Tax receipts. These are all material considerations that weigh in favour of the development. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the economic role of sustainable development. Social role The provision of 8 new dwellings will make small but a useful contribution to the district s housing supply and would help meet the identified need for housing. The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being." There is a conflict with the emerging NP in respect of the mix of housing on the site. However given the overall requirement for housing in the District, it is felt that the scheme would fulfil the social role of sustainable development. Environmental role The proposed development is on land that is free from national designations, i.e. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park, which cover 60 per cent of the district. There is an overriding need to ensure that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is recognised and that development should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. Given the fact 113

114 that there is existing development on three sides of the site it is not considered that there would be a significant adverse impact on the wider countryside. For the reasons that have been outlined above it is considered that the layout of the proposal is not acceptable. The proposal does not properly address the street scene and public realm; instead it turns its back on the main road. It is therefore felt that the scheme does not contribute to protecting, enhancing or producing a positive improvement to the built environment. The NPPF is clear in stating that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, which are to be sought jointly and simultaneously, including an environmental role. It is not considered that the scheme fulfils the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. Planning Balance and Conclusions As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land if follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. In light of the above and the fact that the site is allocated for residential development in the emerging NP, it is considered that the principle of a residential development on this site is acceptable. There would be an economic benefit from the scheme and it would deliver 8 dwellings at a time when the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply. These are all factors that weigh in favour of the scheme. It is not considered that the layout of the proposed scheme is satisfactory. As such the scheme would conflict with policy B1 of the MSLP and policy DP24 of the District Plan and the aims of the NPPF in respect of securing a high standard of design in new development. A fact that weighs against this scheme is the lack of mix in the scheme and the consequent conflict with the emerging NP and District Plan. It would be preferable for the scheme to have a mix of housing as set out in the emerging NP. However at the present time little weight can be afforded to the NP or to the District Plan. It is not felt that this scheme would be so substantial that it would be prejudicial to the entire Ansty and Staplefield NP. Therefore it would be very difficult to sustain a reason for refusal based on a conflict with these emerging plans. Given the benefits of the scheme ( for example, providing new houses, economic benefits) it is considered that on balance, the conflict with these emerging plans is not so sufficient that it would not have justified withholding planning permission on this ground. In light of all the above it is considered that if this application had still been with the District Council to determine it would have been refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed layout and design of the dwellings is not satisfactory and does not result in a high quality development. The houses on plots 1, 2 and 3 do not address the main road to the east. This will result in a poor quality development that does not comply with policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the District Plan. The scheme does not fulfil the 114

115 environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework as the scheme will not contribute to protecting or providing a positive improvement to the built environment. 2. In the absence of a completed S106 Agreement the proposal fails to meet Policy G3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP18 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft in respect of the infrastructure requirement to serve the development. 3. In the absence of a speed survey it has not been demonstrated that the proposed access and in particular, the proposed visibility splays are adequate to serve the development. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local plan and Policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Pre Submission Draft. Members are requested to accept this recommendation so that your officer can write a statement of case to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate. Consultation Responses Southern Water 115

116 Highway Authority I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. In summary we would require some further information clarification on speed limits along Cuckfield Road and demonstration via swept path diagrams that larger vehicles can safely turn within the site. 116